Union of Concerned Scientists start media watch program

I guess Media Matters wasn’t enough? Interesting that they specifically target Fox News via the “Rupert Murdoch” mention. But I’d take their advice and send them alerts, there’s plenty of misrepresentations in the media daily:

Monitor the print and broadcast media outlets in your area and alert us to misrepresentations about global warming. Send alerts to Aaron Huertas at sciencenetwork@ucsusa.org.

From the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Promoting Climate Science for the Public Good


See our national advertising campaign

For centuries science has made the world better for all of us. It’s made our food, our air, and our water safer. It’s made our lives more productive and efficient. Science has brought us many of the conveniences we take for granted in our day-to-day lives.

But recently, science, and especially climate science, has become a political football. Organized interests seeking to delay desperately needed actions to reduce heat-trapping emissions have manufactured controversies and misrepresented the facts.

Such tactics are meant to sow confusion and lull the public into a dangerous complacency. But we will not let those who deny and distort climate science succeed.

UCS is leading a campaign to allow the voices of climate scientists to be heard and to educate the public about the overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming. To accomplish this, we are taking a number of steps, including the following:

  • Working with climate scientists from around the country to disprove fallacies and educate the public about the real facts on global warming.
  • Developing and distributing clear, accessible information to help the media and the public understand the science behind our changing climate.
  • Building American pride in the dedicated researchers who are working to understand and adapt to the consequences of our changing climate.
  • Partnering with Americans from all walks of life to set the record straight on global warming pollution and the urgent need to rein it in.


What You Can Do

  • Monitor the print and broadcast media outlets in your area and alert us to misrepresentations about global warming. Send alerts to Aaron Huertas at sciencenetwork@ucsusa.org.
  • If you are a scientist, we have many ways that you can get involved. Learn more by contacting Jean Sideris at sciencenetwork@ucsusa.org
  • Tell Rupert Murdoch: Get the Facts Straight. Send a message today.

============================

h/t to WUWT reader DocattheAutopsy

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

142 Responses to Union of Concerned Scientists start media watch program

  1. wobble says:

    …take their advice and send them alerts, there’s plenty of misrepresentations in the media daily:

    Monitor the print and broadcast media outlets in your area and alert us to misrepresentations about global warming. Send alerts to Aaron Huertas at sciencenetwork@ucsusa.org.

    Brilliant, Anthony!

  2. Mark Wagner says:

    methinks somehow that they are less concerned with facts than silencing critics.

    But I’ll be sure to forward examples of media misrepresentation of facts. It just won’t be exactly what they had in mind…

  3. Glen Shevlin says:

    be very very very carefull you are being watched…..

  4. Jaye Bass says:

    I think I might barf.

  5. Leon Brozyna says:

    Reeks of desperation.

    Hey, Cameron had his chance and look at how well that worked out.

  6. Venter says:

    This is starting to sound more like a repeat of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

  7. Nick says:

    Maybe we should think about establishing such a service ourselves? WUWT has large enough readership for it to be effective.

  8. pat says:

    These people are crackpots plain and simple. They should be called The Union Of Concerned Nannies. There primary hobby is professing knowledge in areas well outside their individual fields. Hence you find chemists well versed in the intentions of the Chinese military. Agronomists that have statistically studied the defective genes that create conservative politicians. All of them are climate experts and can prove without a doubt that CO2 concentrations but a fraction above the present will cause global catastrophe.
    I can see why such polyglots need to ensure the masses are not confused.

  9. singularian says:

    Do you think if I sent them a copy of their own press release - ‘desperately, dangerous complacency, deny and distort’ - (them’s some big science words right there) they would take action against themselves?

    The more I think about the propaganda war that’s building, the more I think that a worldwide voluntary carbon tax should be brought in. If you ‘believe’ you can tithe 30 – 40% of your income to the UN, if you don’t ‘believe’ spend it on beer, your kids, starving children in Africa. Somehow I think the number of ‘believers’ will drop heavily.

  10. Ian W says:

    If the weather goes cooler – as even NASA/NOAA seems to expect then it will become more and more difficult to keep people ‘on-message’.

    One wonders why it is only climatology that requires this protection – humanity is at at least as greater threat from epidemics/pandemics and rapidly increasing bacterial resistance to antibiotics. But open debate is allowed with those subjects without ‘Unions of Concerned Scientists’ becoming involved. So it cannot be an altruistic concern for the future of the species.

    It wouldn’t be that there are huge amounts of money at stake in climatology funding and associated ‘carbon’ taxes and ‘carbon trading’ would it?

  11. DonK31 says:

    Last year, when there was snitch@WhiteHouse.g** (or whatever) that wanted other “misrepresentations” sent to the powers that be, I used to send things like Debbie Stabenow claiming that she could feel global warming when she flew, the Waxman-Malarkey Bill, An Inconvenient Truth, and links to RC.

    Sounds like a good time to dig them out again.

  12. Sean says:

    I hope someone forwards links to them on the hfc23 story.

  13. Fred says:

    “alert us to misrepresentations about global warming. Send alerts to Aaron Huertas”

    Aaron, Aaron Aaron . . it is “Climate Change” now, not “Global Warming”.

    Didn’t you get the memo or is it you just can’t stick the talking points highlighted in the scripts”

    How will we be able to scam the rubes if you go off script?

    Final warning dude . . . . get with the program.

  14. john a says:

    The bottom line is that unless they convince the taxpaying public that there’s a crisis, and that they’re the ones to save us, we’ll want to put our [tax] dollars to productive uses and they’ll have to find other jobs.

    Asking a climate scientist if there’s a crisis is like asking a barber if you could use a trim, or asking a haberdasher if that suit looks good on me.

  15. Layne Blanchard says:

    Looks clearly like another Soros assault on the free press. An attack on true science masquerading as a defense of science.

  16. Dan in California says:

    As usual, The Union of Confused Scientists is,… confused. They no longer can spend their time being afraid of nuclear war, so they have latched onto climate hype as their new cause. The sad part is that they likely believe their own hype. I agree that we should all send them news articles that distort the facts to make human-generated greenhouse problems look real.

  17. mkelly says:

    Thanks. I have sent my first alert to the email address you provided.

    “…reduce heat-trapping emissions…”

    I pointed out to Arron Huertas that it is a physical impossibility to “trap” heat. If they wish to be taken seriously then they need to stop saying bunk like this.

    If there was a substance that could trap heat I would pay a large sum of money to insulate my house with it. I could save loads living up here in northern Michigan where in the winter a -20 to -30 F in not uncommon.

  18. J. Knight says:

    This is exactly the kind of shitte that turned me away from the global warming cabal. It is high time that people with good sense and good will repudiate the people who are responsible for this 1984 gibberish being promoted by the UCS. What scientific organization would suggest such a thing? And again, what does this say about the character of some of these people who support global warming?

  19. RHS says:

    I can’t wait until they get what they ask for. How long will the email address be good? I give it less than a week before it is overwhelmed with the truth and spam. Too bad they will pay more attention to the spam than anything else!

  20. pat says:

    Send this on to the concerned:
    PATTERSON: Al Gore’s global-warming crusade shrinks
    Eco-autocrats are exposed as frauds

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/24/al-gores-global-warming-crusade-shrinks/

    that should keep them busy. :)

  21. Djozar says:

    You’ve got to be kidding me. The AGW proponents own Congress and have substantial corporate backing, including GE, Exelon and BP. I’m waiting for them to declare climate skepticism as hate speech.

  22. Ray says:

    Talk about [snip] tactics…

    I agree with Mark Wagner above… lets flood them with the bad representation of the real science of global warming found in the media. The email is to Aaron Huertas at sciencenetwork@ucsusa.org

  23. Tom Moriarty says:

    “But recently, science, and especially climate science, has become a political football. ”

    Really? For decades one of the most politicizing agents in the field of science has been the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    What does it take to be a “Concerned Scientist?” An advanced degree in a relevent field? No. Perhaps acknowledged accomplishment in a relevant field? Again, No. Maybe a demonstrated understanding in a relevant field? Sorry, no.

    The only qualification is a working credit card. Yes, pay up – and you too can be a “Concerned Scientist.”

    They’ll roll out the red carpet if you’re a lawyer.

  24. Joe Bastardi says:

    H eh, Anthony, what do you say we start our own group.. The Union of VERY concerned scientists. My first concern: The the globe will cool in front of your very eyes by the change of the large scale natural drivers that have warmed it the last 30 years, but that people that don’t want to allow this debate forward will try to silence those
    that simply wish to see what right or wrong is. All we need is freedom, which may be the real agenda with those wishing to silence this.

    Seems simple enough.. even for people as VERY concerned as you and I are about climate, and other things

    REPLY:
    Oh this could be fun – Anthony

  25. Nat McQueen says:

    I just sent this to them:

    Dear Science Network,

    I recently came across a film containing so many lies, misrepresentations and inaccurate facts about global warming, that a judge in England declared it unfit for viewing by schoolchildren.

    It’s entitled “An Inconvenient Truth” staring Al Gore.

    Have a great day!

    Whaddya think? :>)

  26. Jeremy says:

    FTA: For centuries science has made the world better for all of us. It’s made our food, our air, and our water safer. It’s made our lives more productive and efficient. Science has brought us many of the conveniences we take for granted in our day-to-day lives.

    The elevation to godlike status of the word of science continues unabated. That phrase right there is something you might find in religious extremism propaganda, just replace “science” with “god”. The people who perpetuate with their language this new religion of “Science” are a great peril to rational thinkers everywhere.

    Of course it is true, scientific investigation of the world around us has led to new knowledge which led to new materials usage which has led to new human conveniences. Innovations in software and networking plugged everything together and brought about essentially a new form of human consciousness (the internet). These things are all true. However, question-less worship of the name of a process rather than contextual appreciation of the process itself leads to replacing a highly intellectual pursuit with a meaningless politicized flag. Those who encourage and repeat this behavior of recited mantras under the guise of intellectual superiority are essentially involved in the decay of the very thing they appreciate so much and aiding those who would seek to turn all elements of nuanced authority into a single-minded/two-sided fight for authority.

    I will continue to ignore anyone or any group which uses the term “Science” as a personified proper noun, they are deceivers on par with Scientologists.

  27. u.k.(us) says:

    It may be too late.

    “Deere Quits Climate Coalition Supporting Cap-And-Trade”
    http://news.morningstar.com/newsnet/ViewNews.aspx?article=/DJ/201008251232DOWJONESDJONLINE000514_univ.xml

  28. George E. Smith says:

    Izzat the Union of Communist Sympathizers ?

    Talk about an Organized Obfuscation Outfit. Their stuff is like the angler fish, with a lure to entice you within striking range, from where they can have you for lunch. Anyone who imagines himself to be a scientist; who feels he has to hide his true intent behind a PC smokescreen organizational name, is beneath contempt.

    As far as I am concerned, you can take whatever position you want to; since I believe in free speech; but why aren’t you man enough to admit what your real agenda is.

  29. Phillip Bratby says:

    Do they provide a list of which climate scientists from around the country that they will be working with?

  30. I wonder if the people at UCS actually believe that they are not playing political football? It wouldn’t surprise me. Not that I have any fondness for the idiots at Fox News, but despite what they probably believe about themselves, UCS isn’t exactly fair and balanced when it comes to global warming.

  31. From their web site:
    News Corp. has broadcast and published media pundits claims that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined, that arctic ice is increasing, and that there is no such thing as global warming. Please urge News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch to match his corporation’s green pledges with real action. Tell him we aren’t entertained by scientific misinformation.

    So it is not OK to show actual data? that would be scientific misinformation? And I thought science was about observations and mesurements…

    Don’t look at the data, keep focus on the models!

  32. Henry chance says:

    I am a very very very concerned scientist.
    I am enjoying temps in the 50′s. 20 degrees below normal.

  33. harrywr2 says:

    I sent them this…

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/69845

    (CNSNews.com) – Speaking at a town hall-style meeting promoting climate change legislation on Thursday, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) predicted there will be “an ice-free Arctic” in “five or 10 years.”

  34. J. Knight says:

    Exactly, Djozar, and they own the press and broadcast media to boot, other than Fox News and a very few newspapers who remain neutral in the debate. These facts lead me to believe that the target of these people is more likely to be Anthony and the small number of bloggers and scientists who dispute the methods and interpretations of the global warming crowd. Of course, after the November elections, we should see a complete sea change, and if the House or Senate falls to the Republicans, we are assured an investigation into the methods and interpretations of GISS/NOAA, and who manufactured, hid, smoothed and massaged data, and for what reason. And an opening of the data to the general public. I can’t wait for Anthony and others to be able to look at the data, code and methods of GISS. It kinda “warms” my heart just thinking about it.

  35. Russell C says:

    This isn’t new. UCS was doing this in 1997, check out this copied set of directives and talking points on how to thwart the then-current start-up of the Oregon Petition Project, and notice who is a signer of a letter resulting from this – the now current head of NOAA, Jane Lubchenco: http://campus.queens.edu/faculty/jannr/bio103/kyoto.htm

    Excerpt: This message from the Union of Concerned Scientists is to caution you about a petition effort to reject the Kyoto Protocol that is circulating throughout colleges, universities, and research institutions nationwide…… The Petition Project is apparently a deliberate attempt by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the Marshall Institute – identified as the article authors’ affiliations – to deceive the scientific community with misinformation on the subject of climate change. The Project’s conclusions reflect the authors’ political ideology, not objective peer-reviewed science. If this petition is circulating in your department, please consider urging your colleagues NOT to sign it……”

  36. MattN says:

    Sign me up as a charter member of The Union of Very Concerned Scientists…

  37. Latimer Alder says:

    A close associate has just sent this e-mail to Mr Huertas

    ‘Hi Aaron

    Thought you’d like to know about recent misrepresentation in The Guardian (UK).

    In this case they were obliged to recant as follows:

    ‘This article was amended on 20th August 2010 following a complaint from Andrew Montford to make it clear that we did not mean to imply that Andrew Montford deliberately published false information in order to support the arguments made in his book. We apologise if such a false impression was given.’

    You can read the whole article and many many comments here

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/aug/19/climate-sceptics-mislead-public?

    and Montford’s reply here

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/8/19/glaring-inaccuracies-and-misrepresentations.html

    I share your concern about CAGW misrepresentation and am very pleased to see that one of the most pro-Warmist papers in the UK is beginning to modify its unconditional acceptance of everything the Catastrophists tell them. Long may openness and transparency of data, methods and funding be the norm.

    I will of course forward further news from the UK as it occurs’

    If my associate receives a reply, I will post it fyi.

  38. Robert of Ottawa says:

    I was VERY CONCERNED, so e-mailed them an example – I’m sure they’ll correct their web page now :-)

  39. savethesharks says:

    Joe Bastardi says:
    August 25, 2010 at 10:00 am
    H eh, Anthony, what do you say we start our own group.. The Union of VERY concerned scientists.

    ===================================

    Hahahaha!

    Dang, you beat me to the idea, JB. There is a reason I have been a pro subscriber to Accuweather for years now….and will continue to be.

    Thank you for chiming in, and thank you Anthony, for your continued ground-breaking efforts to bring the simple search for truth, back to the scientific method.

    I might suggest, guys, that, along with your Union of Very Concerned Scientists, that you have a sister group or sub-group under that umbrella of your chapter…

    ….called the Union of Very Concerned Amateurs, to include guys like me, who would gladly contribute!

    So the UCVS and the UCVA.

    OK…back to work… [ugh....I would rather concentrate on this!]

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  40. Frank K. says:

    I believe the UCS representatives need a uniform so that the public can readily identify them when they come calling…something like this…

  41. Sean Peake says:

    Tom Moriarty:

    They’ll roll out the red carpet if you’re a lawyer
    —————-
    And if you’re a climate realist, they’ll roll you up in it

  42. Curiousgeorge says:

    Do you think they have the EPA’s address? I might send them that, just in case.

  43. latitude says:

    “Tell Rupert Murdoch: Get the Facts Straight”

    I’m sending everything to Dan Rather and CBS, they always get their facts straight…

  44. Richard Garnache says:

    The e-mail address, sciencenetwork@ucsusa.org.
    Doesn’t work.

  45. Barry L. says:

    They are just spewing the same garbage as MSM.

    Media watch….. I’d say global Black list. Soon they will have a list of everyone for the green shirts to come and collect for ‘treatment’.

    Made me ill reading this one:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/va-attorney-generals-misguided-mann-investigation-0386.html

  46. latitude says:

    First out president tells people to not listen to the internet, now the UCS wants to censor the media…

    …what do these two things have in common?

    Neither one passes the sniff test, and no one is buying it..

  47. George E. Smith says:

    Talk about trapping heat. After a year of unusual; yet perfectly normal colder that recently weather in the SF Bay area; we just experienced two days of RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES. Well that is some locations in the Bay area reported new highs for 08/23 or 08/24 or both. San Jose reported 95 Monday up form 92 in 1959, while Gilroy had 110 Tuesday, up from 98.

    Whoop de do. If they have 100 years of reliable records, one would expect 3.65 new highs anywhere each year; so we are still shy of maybe two days; whcih we won’t get since it is cooling again. Perish the thought that they would publish the number of days this year with lower than normal (for that date) and the number with higher than normal, so people can see the mini heat wave is a ho-hum nonevent.

    But neverthesless, since it was predicted; excuse me that is projected, that we wouldf have this climatic heat wave; I deided to use the occasion for a research project on clouds; since it is well known in lcoud circles that high temperatures at the surface are caused by high clouds in the upper atmosphere warming the ground.

    So crack of dawn on Monday; before the sun rose; but during twilight, I got up to go and check the sky for clouds. And from horizon to horizon, nadir to zenith, nary a cloud anywhere; not even the faintest whiff of a cloud. Not to worry; the sun was coming up so plenty of time for clouds to form. So i checked every now and then all through Monday, as it got hotter and hotter, and all the way to evening twilight wehre anear full moon was available to show any clouds; and I can pretty much vouch for absolutely zero clouds anywhere over the Bay area at any time on Monday. Well Tuesday gave me a second chance to locate some heat trapping high clouds, so I did the same periodic check while my computer slaved away doing simulations all day long; and as it turned out Tuesday was a total bust too. So for at least 48 hours while daytime temperatures soared; and then cooled at night, there was not a cloud to be seen to blame all this heat on.

    A popular local theory for the lack of heat trapping clouds, is that the hot central valley ground is heating the air over there, and an offshore wind is transporting that hot air over to the Bay area and even out to the Monterey Bay Coast. Well it’s not windy; but a very slight air movement can be detected from tree leaves; but unfortunately there are no clouds to accurately gauge wind speeds from. It’s also not too humid, so the heat is not that clammy kind that sucks your breath away. There appears to be another consequence of this lack of moisture in the air; besides the absence of heat trapping clouds. Without a whole lot of water vapor in that dry air from the central valley, the atmospheric absorption of the longer wavelengths of the solar spectrum in the 750 nm to 4 micron (heat) range is way down from normal; so even right at sunup, if you step out of a shadow zone into the sunlight, you get slapped immediately with that toasty warm radiation that human senses record as “heat”.

    So there you have it; a computer model free anecdotal episode of non climatic weather observation; that seems to confirm that you don’t need high wispy clouds to cause heating of the surface; and that if you don’t have a lot of moisture at the surface along with your heat, then your aren’t likely to get any high wispy clouds either.

    No I know this isn’t Nobel Peace Prize level climate research; but on my salary, it’s the best I can do for now.

    So my money is still on surface warming being responsible for increased atmospheric CO2; but it is also becoming apparent, that surface warming along with some humidity is the likely cause of high altitude wispy clouds.

  48. mkelly says:

    “H eh, Anthony, what do you say we start our own group.. The Union of VERY concerned scientists.”

    Would engineers be allowed to join? Where do I sign up?

  49. James Sexton says:

    “REPLY: Oh this could be fun – Anthony”

    Dang it! I was going to comment on how much fun we can have with this. Fact is, skeptic climate news doesn’t make it to MSM very much. The distortions almost always comes from the alarmist side. Heck, can you imagine this blog if we didn’t have the MSM’s stories to make fun of?

  50. Alexej Buergin says:

    ” Nick says:
    August 25, 2010 at 9:24 am
    Maybe we should think about establishing such a service ourselves? WUWT has large enough readership for it to be effective.”

    We have it. It is called “Tips and Notes to WUWT”.

  51. frederik wisse says:

    Since when is global warming a science ? Ever heard about concerned scientists before ? Of course you heard about scientists and about concerned people , but what has concern to do with science ? Since when is global warming a concern ? What is a dedicated researcher ? Dedication has to do with a belief in a certain cause or a real focus towards a certain mission . Should a researcher be prejudiced ? He should be willing to face the facts , like you Anthony !

  52. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    Send them the IPCC reports and some of MM’s papers.

  53. R. Shearer says:

    “For centuries science has made the world better for all of us. It’s made our food, our air, and our water safer. It’s made our lives more productive and efficient. Science has brought us many of the conveniences we take for granted in our day-to-day lives.”

    Some might argue that it is the application of science (through engineering) that really impacts our lives and this can be both positive and negative. As a cruel example, the impact of the use of atomic weapons can be argued as both good or evil, depending on whether one was friend or foe. (I personally am thankful for atomic weapons because I believe it helped end the war in the Pacific and my father likely would have been killed in a japan invasion.) I believe the application of climate science is similar.

    If a scientist was hired to do climate research, then that scientist might activily promote AGWand even (gasp) exagerate a little. On the other hand, if one is poor and can no longer afford housing, energy or food because of some misapplication of climate belief, then that is bad at least for those poor who are materially disadvantaged.

  54. Douglas DC says:

    Thank you Joe and Anthony-that is a great idea….

  55. gcb says:

    Joe Bastardi says:
    August 25, 2010 at 10:00 am
    H eh, Anthony, what do you say we start our own group..

    Where do we sign up? :-)

  56. John_in_Oz says:

    ‘Climate change’ is a spin produced by the Bush White House to make the issue sound less alarming to the Public than Global Warming.
    We must insist Alarmists stick with ‘Global Warming’. Charge them with supporting for Bush’s attempt to minimise the issue if they try to use weather as evidence for ‘Climate Change’.
    The distortion issue is indeed serious. My local paper has produced many Global Warming news articles over the years. I used to fact-check them against the original peer-reviewed science. I gave up fact-checking at the fiftieth report that misrepresented the original articles. All fifty errors uniformly supported the paper’s bias toward warmist agenda.
    Can we trust the Union of Concernerned Scientists to get the record straight if it does not support their agenda? I’d love to be proven wrong, but I fear not.

  57. KPO says:

    “But we will not let those who deny and distort climate science succeed.”

    Aw, come on guys, say what you really feel. Just let it out. It’ll feel much better – I promise. Go on, submit to your inner self, that’s it… “Those f@$%ing deniers – we ought to round the f#*#ers up and _______ the lot of them.” There you go, how does that feel? Much better!

  58. pat says:

    “The Union of Concerned Scientists was born out of a protest against the war in Vietnam. In 1969, a group of 48 faculty members at MIT — the original “union” — sponsored a one-day work stoppage of scientific research. A conference that coincided with the strike included appearances from such notables as Noam Chomsky (who is now recognized as a leader of the 21st Century “hate-America left”); Eric Mann, who led the 1960s terrorist Weather Underground; and Jonathan Kabat, who argued: “We want capitalism to come to an end.”
    “Later that year, when the founding document of the Union of Concerned Scientists was formalized, the United States’ relationship with the Soviet Union was featured even more prominently than environmental issues. Three of the five propositions in the founding document concern political questions of the Cold War — a topic about which even the brightest physicists and biologists can claim no particular expertise.

    UCS continues to involve itself in issues where scientific credentials carry little weight. For example, the group opposes urban sprawl, disputes a war in Iraq, and supports abortion. While these positions may be perfectly legitimate in themselves, they are hardly the product of “rigorous scientific analysis.”

    An early petition from UCS argues: “A new ethic is required — a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth… This ethic must motivate a great movement.” So activists with lab coats are now presuming to instruct us on matters of ethics and politics. ”

    “In 1997 UCS organized a petition that warned of “global warming” and advocated U.S. ratification of the Kyoto treaty. It was signed by 1,600 scientists, and so UCS declared that “the scientific community has reached a consensus.” But when a counter-petition that questioned this so-called “consensus” was signed by more than 17,000 other scientists, UCS declared it a “deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific community with misinformation.”

    “In 1980 UCS predicted that the earth would soon run out of fossil fuels. “It is now abundantly clear,” the group wrote, “that the world has entered a period of chronic energy shortages.” Oops! Known reserves of oil, coal and natural gas have never been higher, and show every sign of increasing. ”

    Read it all:
    http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/145-union-of-concerned-scientists

  59. AllenC says:

    Here is a copy of the email I sent to Aaron.

    Aaron,

    I want to alert you to a misreprensentation about Global Warming on
    your own website!!!

    Your website says:

    “Organized interests seeking to delay desperately needed actions to
    reduce heat-trapping emissions have manufactured controversies and
    misrepresented the facts.”

    There is no such thing as “heat trapping emissions”!! If there is,
    would they work better than the fiberglass insulation in the walls of
    my home? Heck, if emissions can “trap heat”, I want some of them to
    lower my heating and cooling bills!

    I look forward to seeing the correction to your website.

    Kindest regards,

  60. Stu says:

    “REPLY: Oh this could be fun – Anthony”

    I concur. Where better to learn about the Catlin expedition’s hilarious but dodgy ‘realtime biotelemetry data’ ploy? Fooling the kids no less…

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/08/catlin-ice-survey-website-recycles-biotelemetry-data/

    The recycling of stories and photograhs on the Wilkins ice shelf.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/the-antarctic-wilkins-ice-shelf-collapse-media-recycles-photos-and-storylines-from-previous-years/

    The latest rice story cock up (Anthony provides the correction)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/12/bbc-to-issue-correction-on-rice-yields-story/

    The Times newspaper making up firsts on the accessibility of the Northeast Passage as a shipping lane.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/london-times-forced-to-recant-ads-touting-ne-passage/

    and other favourites?

    WUWT is way ahead of this so called ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’. Hey maybe they can team up?

    No?

    just a thought…

  61. peterhodges says:

    wow. how blatantly orwellian.

    i like your idea anthony, but it is pointless to try and correct the media.

  62. Eddie says:

    I’ve sent 3 in so far, plan to send several more over the next few days. Accidentally sent my phone number that’s in my automatic signature block on one. Lets see if they call me :D

  63. Ed Caryl says:

    Anthony, it’s fun now!

  64. Fred Lightfoot says:

    The opposite of skeptic is gullible.

  65. Tom Rowan says:

    Eco-Hoaxes and the Decline of the MSM / The Internet has freed us from MSM eco hoax campaigns

    What do Alar, DDT, and CFCs have in common? All three modern miracles were taken from humanity based on hoaxes. Prior to the internet the MSM ran rough shod over science and popular opinion. The MSM uncritically told us that DDT was bad, that CFCs were ‘depleting’ the ozone layer, and that Alar was poisoning our apples.

    America was once teeming with bedbugs and mosquitoes. These mosquitoes carried dengue fever, (life threatening and incurable,) malaria, (life threatening and incurable,) yellow fever, West Nile Virus, and Equine Encephalitis. DDT ended the mosquito’s rein of terror. DDT is a highly stable and inert miracle compound. It has no documented affects on any wildlife whatsoever. But DDT kills mosquitos and bed bugs. Not one person ever went to the hospital suffering from DDT poisoning, ever. Not one animal ever died due to DDT. Only the life threatening mosquitoes and the dreaded bed bugs were killed.

    Alar was said to be bad for us because Hollywood actresses who played movie parts as farmer’s wives went to Washington and claimed it was. The MSM treated these script readers as prophets enlightening the unwashed masses.

    CFCs are stable and inert compounds. CFCs allowed for refrigeration and freezing making feeding humanity cheaper and safer. But the MSM told us that the magic CFC molecule was not cool. The MSM calmly explained to us that long before man flew a heavier than air machine, that CFCs had mastered the feat. The magic CFC molecule is 4 times heavier than air yet it is able to rise as high as helium filled weather balloons!
    The ozone layer was something akin to a big bag of flour in the sky we were told. And CFCs magically floated up and cut the bag of Ozone flour. The bag of Ozone flour was “depleted.” And the hoax lived happily ever after.

    It did not matter that new ozone is created everyday by the sun. It did not matter that CFCs have never been scientifically shown to damage ozone in the lab or in the sky. It did not matter that CFC molecules are 4 times heavier than air. Mankind uses Saturn rockets and helium filled weather balloons to reach the ozone layer. The magic CFC molecule hitches a ride on a lie. Recently, the theory of ozone ‘depletion’ by CFCs has been radically disemboweled. All the scientists who were so sure of the dogma are scratching their heads and going back to the drawing board.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/galactic-cosmic-rays-may-be-responsible-for-the-antarctic-ozone-hole/

    The Globalony eco hoax is the latest in a long line of junk science scams whose only purpose and intent seems to be dismantling the most successful civilization on earth. Globalony is nothing more than a national IQ test. More precisely, the scam of global warming is a man made hoax. The hoax stands as a proxy to measure the MSM’s ability to make us believe the laughably false. Thanks to the internet, the environmental left’s eco hoaxes are coming home to roost. The internet is an environmental threat to hoaxes, scams, and frauds. Fraudulent science, hoaxes, and the con men that push them are becoming the endangered species. Extinction will be a welcome development.

  66. Buffoon says:

    1) “disprove fallacies”
    A statement which implies criticisms are inherently wrong.
    2) “Developing and distributing clear, accessible information to help the media and the public understand the science behind our changing climate”
    A statement of intent to control the spread, manner and intent of information.
    3) “Building American pride”
    Shallow demagoguery
    4) “Partnering with Americans from all walks of life”
    Playing the class-race card.
    5) “to set the record straight on global warming pollution”
    Implying there is a correct answer, and opinion must be bent to it
    6) “and the urgent need to rein it in.”
    Creating anxiety around the issue to subjugate logic, reason and discussion.

    7) “Union of Concerned Scientists[sic]”
    No longer an applicable label.

  67. Don E says:

    I find very few stories in the SF Chronicle about global warming anymore. None today. Climate change is so yesterday. The green press seems to have shifted its attention pesticides and chemical phobias.

  68. sdollarfan says:

    Would somebody please tell the UCS that this is not North Korea and Cuba? (Maybe I will). Their efforts at censoring/silencing what I call the “opposition party line” here is anything but characteristic of the democracy which we are supposed to be. The American people have the right to hear the side of the scientific story that the UCS does not want them to hear. In this way, the American people can make up their own mind about the subject of climate change irregardless of what the UCS and Al Gore want them to believe. That is how things are done in a democracy whether UCS and Al Gore like it or not.

  69. RockyRoad says:

    This reminds me of that list the Obama administration was putting together–you know, the one where you were encouraged to notify them about your neighbor’s questionable behavior. I preempted the process and sent in my own personal information and encouraged all my friends to do the same. It wasn’t long after that they took the site down. I’m hoping they were being overwhelmed with people submitting their own “un-American” behavior.

  70. Bruce Cobb says:

    Wow, The Union of Climate Bedwetters Concerned “Scientists” has a gold mine of disinformation, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods right on their own website: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/understanding-urgency-climate-change.html
    Some real whoppers include:

    “if we fail to reduce heat-trapping emissions, we will cross a threshold, and the changes in our world will be irreversible.”

    Ah yes, the old “tipping point” meme. Never fails to amuse.

    “Releasing carbon into the atmosphere is sort of like filling a water balloon from an outdoor faucet.”

    False, misleading analogy. The atmosphere is nothing whatsoever like a balloon.

    “Like the swollen water balloon, the atmosphere is overloaded.” (with “carbon”)

    So, the atmosphere is ready to explode then, right?

    “a ton of CO2 emissions today traps more heat than it would have fifty years ago.”

    Really? So is that why temperatures have basically been in stall mode the past decade?

    “recent research indicates that Earth’s climate is changing more quickly than scientists had projected just a few years ago.”

    Sure. It’s worse than we thought. Changing how, exactly? I thought you said warming, but now you’re saying “it’s changing”. Make up your minds.

    “If we continue along the high emissions path, projections show that we risk locking in a rise of 3.6 to 9.9 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.”

    Projections? Please. They’re based on models, not on reality.

    And finally, this howler:

    “Climate change carries serious consequences both for humans and for ecosystems. This is a crisis that will affect our food, our national security, our water, our ability to live where we choose, and other basic human needs. Whether and how we address global warming is not a question of science, it’s a question of values.”

    What a load of alarmist bollocks. Values? How about starting with telling the truth?

  71. Robert says:

    Warmistas should know by now, that once you start firing tracers to the other side that they have the nasty habit of working both ways.

  72. Enneagram says:

    This is not a conspiracy, it is a mechanical conspiracy of all those who share minuscule spirits, scared to death at the possibility that their smallness and nothingness may be discovered.
    YOU ARE WRONG KIDS, we always knew who you are, it was just your Mommy and Daddy’s fault not to tell it to you when they had to.

  73. Theo Barker says:

    Given their history and membership, is the true meaning of the acronym UCS – “Union of Covert Soviets”? Do they have more affinity to Lysenko than Einstein?

    Any organization with Union in its name likely is guided by some sort of variation of early 20th century socialist ideology.

  74. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    If they are truly interested in disproving fallacies, how about they start with the following:

    1. Disprove the fallacy that a 0.5 degree temperature anomoly is “unprecidented”
    2. Disprove the fallacy that the manmade fraction of a fairly insignificant trace gas in the atmosphere can have a significant impact on global climate.
    3. Disprove the fallacy that CO2 is the one and only primary driver of climate change.

    I can easily come up with many more fallacies that they should be very eager to try to disprove, but those 3 would be a great start!

  75. Dan in California says:

    pat says: August 25, 2010 at 11:10 am
    “The Union of Concerned Scientists was born out of a protest against the war in Vietnam. In 1969, a group of 48 faculty members at MIT — the original “union” — sponsored a one-day work stoppage of scientific research. ….”

    I’d like to know was there also a one-day paycheck stoppage?

  76. TomRude says:

    I am VERY, VERY concerned that Jimmy Prall may lay his hands on the list of VERY concerned members… LOL

  77. Djozar says:

    One of the issues I have with this group is that they tend to influence my professional societies. I’m a mechanical engineer with multiple professional licenses, working primarily with air conditioning systems. My professional societies are so dominated by theorists that don’t want to investigate the overall impact of their religion that I can’t state my opinion for fear of losing work.

  78. scott lurndal says:

    George E. Smith says:
    August 25, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Talk about trapping heat. After a year of unusual; yet perfectly normal colder that recently weather in the SF Bay area; we just experienced two days of RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES. Well that is some locations in the Bay area reported new highs for 08/23 or 08/24 or both. San Jose reported 95 Monday up form 92 in 1959, while Gilroy had 110 Tuesday, up from 98.

    George, It was interesting to note that this heat wave occured during the only three-day period where the record high was not already greater than 95 degF.

    Here’s a good chart of this year in San Jose – I think this is one of the most informative graphs the NWS prepares:

    KSJC Yearly Temps 2010

  79. Ed Murphy says:

    Imagine a great big ‘Watts Up With That? Union of VERY Concerned Scientists’ tour bus traveling the NH. Informing the public and reporting on local climate events.

    Rupert Murdoch launches a very successful and popular time slot dedicated to these presentation tours. Maybe even a ‘Climate Channel’ is born presenting both sides of the debate. Coverage of weather events eventually include much of the rest of the globe.

  80. Gnomish says:

    I reported them to themselves, beginning with the exploitative images of children.
    I said [SNIP] [SNOP] [OMGWTFLOLBBQ] [SNAP]

  81. WillR says:

    Welllll their IP address is part of this network…

    http://www.convio.com/
    Convio, Inc. CONVIO-69-48-252-128-25 (NET-69-48-252-128-1)
    69.48.252.128 – 69.48.252.255

    It looks like fund raising is a big part of the deal.

    Maybe Anthony could dream up a similar scheme — hey man I could use the bucks — my Big Oil checks have taken a hit since BP had that little problem.

  82. DonK31 says:

    OT, but What the Heck…

    Visit Wunderground.com and vote in the poll on whether AGW was part of the cause of the Russian heat wave recently ended. As of 3:35 PM the nays have it.

  83. yarmy says:

    I’m going to help them out. “Heat-trapping emissions” is a woeful misrepresentation of the physics of the Greenhouse Effect. Shall I send them an email?

    It’s depressing to see the spirit of Joseph McCarthy is alive and well.

  84. kfg says:

    Joe, please consider me as a charter member of the Union of Scientists Absolutely Apoplectic Over Voodoo with Numbers. I think it would be a relatively easy task to generate a Hockey Stick of our very own.

  85. OK S. says:

    This reply to “Is Climat Change Causing Wild Weathter?” over at the National Journal by a supposed climate scientist might need to be reported to to them: Climate Changes Causes Extreme Weather

    OK S.

  86. stephen richards says:

    Theo Barker says:
    August 25, 2010 at 11:56 am
    Given their history and membership, is the true meaning of the acronym UCS – “Union of Covert Soviets”? Do they have more affinity to Lysenko than Einstein?

    Any organization with Union in its name likely is guided by some sort of variation of early 20th century socialist ideology.

    Rather like any org or country with democracy in the name is always a dictatorship.

  87. Iggy Slanter says:
  88. Roy UK says:

    It is all well and good sending them articles with Fallacies, but when they realise that you are sending them stories against their agenda they will just mark your e-mail address as spam, then they will never see another message sent by you from that e-mail address, unless you have lots of e-mail addresses you would soon be censored and your message would not take up any of their time.

    Thats why I would always use a disposable e-mail address. I found loads of sites offering single use e-mails by googling “disposable email”. You can even check back on some of the sites to see if there is any reply to your concern.

    Just my 2 cents. BTW I have to use my real e-mail address to ensure my posts appear here.

  89. George E. Smith says:

    And the great missing cloud mystery continues today; even though we won’t be having any new records; so we are still a couple of hot records shy for San Jose.

    But nary a cloud today; hot solar radiation; with my baseball cap on my head gets hot and sweats; but just my walking speed air flow through strap holes in hat, even when walking on brand new blacktop parking lot, gives refreshing evaporative coolign; showing that the relative humidity really is quite low; hence the “heat” component of the soalr spectrum is getting though almost ubtrapped by H2O vapors.

    So you don’t need any fancy Playstation to do at least weather research; let alone climate research; you literally can walk outside and hold your finger up in the air.

    If the ucs actually did some climate science instead of political blustering; the state of climate science might become a tad better than ancient astrology.

  90. Henry chance says:

    Can we form a Union for Concern Trolls?

    Do it for the grand children of course.

  91. DonK31 says:

    RockyRoad says:
    August 25, 2010 at 11:46 am
    This reminds me of that list the Obama administration was putting together–you know, the one where you were encouraged to notify them about your neighbor’s questionable behavior. I preempted the process and sent in my own personal information and encouraged all my friends to do the same. It wasn’t long after that they took the site down. I’m hoping they were being overwhelmed with people submitting their own “un-American” behavior.

    I wrote and asked that I be added to the enemies list because I didn’t want to be the only one not receiving a government check that wasn’t on the list.

  92. JC says:

    This was my submission -

    Dear Concerned Scientists,

    I’ve got one for you. I’ve read and seen recently in the MSM that there are a bunch of wack jobs running around saying CO2 is a pollutant. Would you believe it? Some of these weirdoes are even on the Supreme Court. Any one that thinks that a gas that is essential to life on this planet is a pollutant certainly should not be in such a position of responsibility.
    If you ask me the only CO2 that is a pollutant is the CO2 coming out of their mouths. As concerned scientists I really think you should set these people straight but I’m not going to hold my CO2.

    Jeff Clarke

  93. ClimateWatcher says:

    Thing that always bothered me about the UCS is in the name:

    ‘Concern’ – by its nature is emotional
    Science – by its nature is not.

  94. RHG says:

    The UCS was the fourth-largest recipient of foundation grants for climate studies in the period 2000-2002, a fourth of its $24M grant income being for that purpose.

    Page 16: http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/289.pdf

    Suggests that a lot has been invested in being ‘right’.

    The largesse of backers both private and public does not necessarily make them ‘wrong’, but they have a an awful lot at stake given the receding tide of credibility in their ‘alarmist’ activism.

  95. rbateman says:

    Big Media wants you to be an informant. You turn ‘em in, we’ll get ‘em.
    A society based on Fear. Sounds like something we used to be at odds with in a country far away.

  96. tallbloke says:

    “For centuries science has made the world better for all of us. It’s made our food, our air, and our water safer. “

    Lol.

  97. Peter Plail says:

    I quickly skipped through the text and thouight that it was an admirable suggestion. It seemed pretty much a repeat of what has been going on in WUWT for some time – helping people understand the science of a changing climate and disprove the fallacies. Then I started to read the comments and thought I had missed something.

    I had indeed.

    I missed one sentence – “Organized interests seeking to delay desperately needed actions to reduce heat-trapping emissions have manufactured controversies and misrepresented the facts.”

    So perhaps we should all ignore that sentence, monitor the print and broadcast media outlets in our area and alert them to misrepresentations about global warming. Things like the link between CO2 and warming, rising temperatures, melting polar icecaps etc.

    Send alerts to Aaron Huertas at sciencenetwork@ucsusa.org.

  98. George E. Smith says:

    “”” scott lurndal says:
    August 25, 2010 at 12:23 pm
    George E. Smith says:
    August 25, 2010 at 10:40 am “””

    Thanks Scott, that’s a great chart. And the interesting thing besides it pointing out that this is cooler than normal year; if you compare the three day black peaks with the pink all time max, you immediately see that todays peaks are not at all unusual; for San Jose highs; they are just ho hum new record highs as far as San Jose goes.

  99. Bob Kutz says:

    Or, you can customize their message and send it, as I did;

    Dear Mr. Murdock,

    AGW is a sham industry set up for the consolidation of power and the enrichment of those in power.

    Please help us get the truth out; Global Warming is not the catastrophe portrayed by Al Gore and his cadre of scientific henchmen.

    Global warming has occurred recently just as it has occurred in the past and isn’t very unusual.

    Current global warming is not at all out of the ordinary and the notion that it is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions is an exaggeration of our current knowledge. CO2 may play a role, even a significant role, but the ‘tipping points’ referred to by the alarmists simply do not exist or we would have never had the last three ice ages. Further, some degree of warming is clearly beneficial to life on this planet, or at least it has been in the past.

    Finally, current “scientists” seem to have vested themselves in proving the hypothesis of AGW which should inherently disqualify them from further scientific endeavor (at least at public expense) on the matter. When questioned about their methodology and data several claim to have lost it, several claim that this (publicly funded) research is proprietary and all of them stoop to ad hominem attacks on those questioning the science and many have engaged in the subversion of the peer review process. At this point the whitewash investigations by the several institutions involved are demonstrably insufficient and they are clearly covering up academic fraud to protect those institutions. If you have a reporter who could read through the FOIA file and attached code, which I have in my possession, and could conduct a serious investigation, you could break this whole thing wide open. It’s what news organizations used to do. This is bigger than Woodward and Bernstein. They just discovered a president who covered up some dirty tricks used in a campaign. This AGW scheme involves the subversion of entire nations under the guise of saving the planet. There are a lot of powerful people who stand to make a TON of money on the backs of the middle class, working poor and people in lesser developed nations. These leaders and captains of industry know the full story and are complicit. The scientists aren’t necessarily willing accomplices to these people but they know where their bread is buttered and they’ve been taught not to rock the boat. As such they are useful idiots to the plans of those who stand to benefit.

    I am a simple journeyman accountant with a strong background in statistics and yet even I can show you the flaws in their methodology. There’s even a new study out which eviscerates Mann’s hockey stick; McShane & Wyner 2010, Annals of Applied Statistics.

    In short; keep up the good work and let’s run these charlatans out of the castle.

  100. Mark says:

    “REPLY: Oh this could be fun – Anthony”

    What would be really fun is that seeing that James Cameron chickened out of a debate on the science, that Joe challenges him to a wrestling match! Oh to hear the sound of a twig snapping!

  101. Dr A Burns says:

    Why won’t any of these guys ever tell us just what ” the overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming” is supposed to be ?

    Maybe they are too “overwhelmed” to find any ?

  102. George E. Smith says:

    “”” tallbloke says:
    August 25, 2010 at 2:18 pm
    “For centuries science has made the world better for all of us. It’s made our food, our air, and our water safer. “

    Lol. “””

    Well as far as I can remember, air and water have always been safe. And the same pretty much goes for food. All of them fall under the heading “Moderation in all things is good.”

    But soem sources of food such as buffalo steaks or a thresher shark steak can be hazardous if you don’t prepare it properly before eating; dead it preferrable to live when it comes to both sharks and buffalo for food; but even then you can choke on it.

    To the extent that the Heimlich manouver can be said to be science (medical), I suppose choking on a hot dog is about as hazardous as it has always been.

  103. Warren says:

    I found 3 articles in the New Zealand Herald, from this week, 2 articles in the Melbourne Age, and 3 just from today in the Solomon Star.

    I hope he does something about them

    :-)

  104. Ben says:

    The more you tighten your grip, Gore, the more media outlets will slip through your fingers.

    Gore: Not after we demonstrate the power of this rotund carbon emitting body!

  105. Alan Simpson not from Friends of the Earth says:

    You can smell the desperation in the air, you can also watch it in the MSM.

    Even the Gruaniad blogs are three to one against, the sound of a thousand grant applications going up the chimney is what motivates the “scientists”, grim stuff.

  106. Z says:

    Joe Bastardi says:
    August 25, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Heh, Anthony, what do you say we start our own group.. The Union of VERY concerned scientists.

    What about Union of Robust Scientists?

  107. Z says:

    Alan Simpson not from Friends of the Earth says:
    August 25, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    You can smell the desperation in the air, you can also watch it in the MSM.

    Even the Gruaniad blogs are three to one against, the sound of a thousand grant applications going up the chimney is what motivates the “scientists”, grim stuff.

    The shame of it is going to be the absolute tarring with the same brush of all science once this is all over. Rather like those that were reamed during the Great Depression and who never tolerated banks again, it may take 2-3 generations before broadstroke cynicism about scientists and their possible political agendas finally disperses.

    It’s a rather unfortunate fact that people who stop believing in something, don’t believe in nothing – rather they believe in anything. We already have people who believe in the power of crystals – I don’t want to even think of what may be next…

  108. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From: mkelly on August 25, 2010 at 9:36 am

    If there was a substance that could trap heat I would pay a large sum of money to insulate my house with it. I could save loads living up here in northern Michigan where in the winter a -20 to -30 F in not uncommon.

    Does this count? ITC-100 HT, product of International Technical Ceramics. It’s used for forges, kilns, and other applications to retain heat, and is very effective.

    http://www.ceramicsguides.com/RefractoryCeramics-KilnLinings.htm
    As used for kilns, note the temporary kiln made from plywood coated with ITC-100.

    http://www.budgetcastingsupply.com/ITC.php
    Info on all four related ITC products.

    http://www.anvilfire.com/sales/ITC/100_2.htm
    Application instructions for the ceramic coating.

    http://www.weavermateriel.com/Weaver/itc%20brochure.htm
    Brochure with photos of the ITC products in use. See the sheet of plywood being used as a temporary furnace door? With that much light coming through the plywood, you know it’s very hot on the other side of it.

    It’s described as IR-reflective, fantastic energy savings are achieved with just the normal thin layer of this ceramic coating. Now your home is not a kiln, I don’t know how good it’ll work applied to the house’s sheathing, whether plywood or planks. But properly applied to your water heater or home furnace, underneath the normal fiberglass insulation, it should save you some energy. Heck, I wonder how it’ll work on the sides and lids of metal stove-top cookware, applied on the outside of course. Considering how much heat is normally radiated during cooking, one could save some good money right there.

    How much the “domestic engineer” of the house will like the aesthetics of cookware with said ceramic coating, is another issue.

  109. to reduce heat-trapping emissions have manufactured controversies and misrepresented the facts.

    Haven’t they heard yet of the negative feedback from H2O?? And they are scientists?

  110. Partnering with Americans from all walks of life to set the record straight on global warming pollution and the urgent need to rein it in.

    And scientists say co2 is a pollutant??

  111. alert us to misrepresentations

    Ok. Here is one:

    The title ‘ Union of Concerned Scientists’ is a misrepresentation since it is not comprised of all scientists. ‘Union of Concerned Activists’ is the correct title.

    Please correct your misleading name. And please give it immediate attention since it is good for those who live in glass houses to not throw stones.

  112. Jimmy Haigh says:

    These guys are just ‘scientists’ concerned about their cushy jobs.

  113. Eric Gisin says:

    Required reading on UCS: http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/145-union-of-concerned-scientists

    After nuke testing stopped, they went after nuclear power. They are opposed to all modern agriculture. Basically they are paranoid, anti-science luddites.

  114. Harry Lu says:

    Tom Rowan says:
    August 25, 2010 at 11:33 am
    “DDT is a highly stable and inert miracle compound. It has no documented affects on any wildlife whatsoever. But DDT kills mosquitos and bed bugs”

    I hope you see the error with your statement? (hint mosquitoes are wildlife)

    http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8659%281946%2976%5B315%3ARTOSAO%5D2.0.CO%3B2?journalCode=fitr
    “On July 23, 1947, a 1-mile section of Back Creek, treated the previous year with a DDT suspension with little damage to fish, was re-treated with an oil spray at the same rate (1 pound per acre). The oil spray killed about six times as many fish as the suspension formula.
    Fish began dying within 3 to 4 hours after treatment,”

    I think fish are wildlife. DDT kills many insects some of which are beneficial.
    DDT is NOT banned for malaria control!!!!!!

    \harry

  115. Jeff Alberts says:

    Just sent this as an alert to the UoCS:

    I have a couple of alerts for you based on your recent press release.

    1) The Al Gore film: An Inconvenient Truth, is so full of misrepresentations and outright falsehoods that it serves no purpose except as a propaganda machine for Mr. Gore’s own financial endeavors. As an example, he shows his temperature graph for the last thousand years labeled “Lonnie Thompson’s Thermometer”. It is no such thing. It is simply the Mann “hockey stick” which has been shown to be statistically unsound, bogus.

    2) If you watch American television, you may often see the advertisements sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) where the actor Noah Wyle tells us that Polar Bears are on the edge of extinction. Funny that, when I go to the WWF site about Polar Bears [http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/polarbear/polarbear.html], one finds the following curious statement:

    “With 20-25,000 polar bears living in the wild, the species is not currently endangered, but its future is far from certain.”

    It is very clear that the ads by WWF are outright lies, and should be dealt with accordingly.

    As concerned scientists, I hope you will take appropriate action against such things.

    Thank you,

    Jeff Alberts
    Concerned US Citizen

  116. coldfinger says:

    “…to allow the voices of climate scientists to be heard …” They’re kidding aren’t they? All the mainstream media ever gives is the AGW view.

    “…and to educate the public about the overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming” I.e to propagandise and lobby for the AGW cult.

  117. Ed Murphy says:

    Hey Joe Bastardi, looks like things may be about to pick up on one of your drivers…

    http://scienceblogs.com/eruptions/

    Boris Behncke’s prediction 4-5 months ago is happening. An explosive eruption at Etna. Not too bad yet…

    A busy day for Etna and Galeras

    http://scienceblogs.com/eruptions/2010/08/a_busy_day_for_etna_and_galera.php

    Galeras Erupts

    http://scienceblogs.com/eruptions/2010/08/galeras_erupts.php

  118. Ian says:

    Great idea to send these self-deluding ‘scientists’ what they ask for, but I suggest not giving them any clue that a link isn’t to the type of article they expect – make them read it to find that out!

  119. H.R. says:

    How about the “Union of Unconcerned Scientists?

    Who’s concerned about a little more CO2? If history is any guide, our concern should be that we won’t be getting any more global warming.

  120. Gerald Machnee says:

    Expect your submissions to be edited or deleted as in RC.

  121. TWE says:

    Z says:
    August 25, 2010 at 4:40 pm
    It’s a rather unfortunate fact that people who stop believing in something, don’t believe in nothing – rather they believe in anything.

    And that is the real danger here. When this all falls over, there will be a LOT of people whose trust in science will be completely shattered. If they are from the large group of people who don’t really ‘believe’ in anything else such as an organised religion, they’ll be looking for something new to believe in. There are plenty of deceitful and manipulative people waiting in the wings to oblige, and they’re already moving…

  122. Steve Oregon says:

    Hi concerned union folks,

    NOAA head Jane Lubchenco, while at OSU distributed, worldwide, her fabricated link between AGW-global warming and Oregon’s ocean Dead Zones and the Oregonian newspaper and editorial board echoed every contrived thing Jane uttered about it. Gavin Schmidt’s RealClimate blog regulars were somehow convinced Lubchenco had scientifically established the link.

    “We seem to have crossed a tipping point,” Lubchenco said.
    Jane Lubchenco: Since 2002, every summer now, we have seen a dead zone off the coast of Oregon and Washington.
    “Areas that used to be very, very productive are now becoming wastelands, if you will, ‘dead zones’, because of insufficient oxygen in the water that is a result of these combined oceanic and atmospheric changes that we think are most likely related to global climate change.

    Now with record harvests from the “dead zone” the paper doesn’t mention a word about global warming or Jane Lubchenco? Instead the paper poo poos the whole thing and quotes a retired bureaucrat instead of Lubchenco.

    Google this oregonlive.com ocean dead zones and see the string of nonsense.

    So what happened to the tipping point of death?
    Never mind?

    http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/08/and_now_a_crab_bounty.html

    A crab bounty
    Published: Wednesday, August 25, 2010, 10:30 AM
    The Oregonian Editorial Board

    It was four years ago this month that a state marine ecologist described a Dungeness crab carnage off Oregon’s coast. Hal Weeks, after peering into waters off Cape Perpetua, told this newspaper the pileup looked like so many “jellybeans in a jar — you just can’t count them, there were so many.”

    The ocean was killing them.

    A vast oxygen-starved layer of water had blanketed Oregon’s central coast with a “dead zone” in which few creatures, including crab, could live. Dead zones of smaller magnitude had annually preceded the big killer, but the phenomenon by 2006 fueled fears that the ocean was in a strange and dangerous tailspin.

    Happily, that seems now to be history.

    Last week could hardly have been a better one in Oregon’s Dungeness crabbing community, which closed out the season punching up some very big numbers. The haul from the past 8 1/2 months is 23 million pounds — a figure that may well hit 25 million pounds once all pots are brought in, by the end of the month.

    So far the value of the harvest to more than 400 crabbers exceeds $40 million, with tens of millions more in estimated economic impact in coastal communities. This is the fourth season in a decade in which the haul exceeds 20 million pounds, infusing families and businesses with real income.

    While the world’s oceans show the ravages of acidification and a decline in oxygen-producing phytoplankton, highly productive nutrient-rich waters have been returning to the Oregon coast — and with them our marine bounty.

    It is a good thing that may once have been taken for granted. No more, though.

    Now it seems more a gift than ever.

  123. Dave Springer says:

    “For centuries science math, chemistry, physics, engineering, and medicine has made the world better for all of us. It’s made our food, our air, and our water safer. It’s made our lives more productive and efficient. Science has brought us many of the conveniences we take for granted in our day-to-day lives.”

    Fixed that for ‘em above.

    The harsh truth:

    In recent decades soft sciences such as climatology and evolutionary biology, which have contributed nothing of substance to make the world better for us, have been clamoring for undeserved recognition, made themselves the promoters and advocates of the culture wars, and in general have been a detriment to society.

  124. Shevva says:

    And that’s the rub of the green, you send them articles and such about climate science and they will simply ignore them, la, la la, I can’t here you.

    I guess its ANOTHER attempt to silence the bog-o-sphere, I’d suggest being honest but as any estate agent, banker, politician or con artist will tell you honesty is not the best policy.

  125. Pascvaks says:

    They don’t seem to like Meteorologists – but Hollywood is represented.

    http://www.ucsusa.org/about/board.html

  126. Van Grungy says:

    I don’t understand why anybody but Commies disparage Joseph McCarthy…
    He was correct… A book came out titled “Blacklisted by History” that documents all the ways McCarthy was correct… Ever wonder why Mao and his rag tag bunch of Commie dorks came to power?.. Commies in the State Department helped him by directing foreign policy to disallow help to Mao’s non-Commie enemies…
    By continuing the meme that ‘McCarthyism’ is bad in any way whatsoever, you play into the Commie’s hands…
    We need MORE people like the brave American Patriot Joseph McCarthy…
    Stop disparaging a man who tried to stop the rot of Commie infiltration…
    Stop doing what the Commie infiltrators have conditioned you to do…

    Just look around at the America that is crumbling to pieces due to “regressive progressive” Commies who have been allowed to soften their image so much that the People chose an America hating Marxist for President…

    The Commies demonized McCarthy… Why are you still going along with the Commies characterization when clearly McCarthy was correct?

    Restore history… Restore honor to Joseph McCarthy who was fighting the same commies we are dealing with today…

  127. Djozar says:

    Slightly off topic, but does anyone have a degree plan that indicates how you get a PhD in climatology? And how long has it been around?

  128. TGBrown says:

    Here was my submission to their request:

    Thank you for your request for alerts on misrepresentation of science in the media.
    The following web article

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/weight-of-the-evidence.html
    used the phrase “desperately needed actions to reduce heat-trapping emissions”

    As you know, the phrase “desperately needed” is a misrepresentation of an important and ongoing scientific debate, namely the relative roles of forcing, magnetic solar activity, cloud feedback, and ocean heat content, on climate change. I am part of a concerned group of scientists within the American Physical society who feel that media releases such as this will do tremendous damage to the credibility scientific activity — activity that has the potential to do so much good.

    I therefore request that you add ucsusa.org to your list of organizations that badly distort the science for their own ideological purpose.

  129. Russell C says:

    Turned my comment way above into a piece at American Thinker, which includes the link showing UCS’ 1997 antics, “”Silencing global warming critics” http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/silencing_global_warming_criti.html

    Excerpt: “In all this effort, has the UCS ever actually engaged the skeptic scientists in head-to-head debate on the underlying science of man-caused global warming, and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt how they prevail? In all the UCS’ reliance on Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets.org for its accusations that big oil & coal corrupts the skeptics, have they ever shown smoking gun evidence such as “…according to Oil Company document ‘X’ dated ‘Y’ going to ‘Z’ accompanied with the instruction to fabricate ‘AB’ science document having ‘CD’ conclusion about natural global warming…”?

    For some incredibly odd reason, the suicidal idea that a small group of people can manipulate the news and suppress criticism prevails, as opposed to a more logical approach where debate is won though the presentation of incontrovertible evidence.”

  130. kfg says:

    Djozer: The last time I looked the University of South Queensland, N.Z. was the only one with a degree program in climatology. As the program is entirely an invention of the 21st century (mostly as a marketing ploy to take advantage of the numbers of students seeking such a program who were ignorant of the fact that there was no such thing, plus, of course, as a means to gain more government funds) the number of actual Ph.Ds produced by said program to date is certainly few to none.

    Climatology is, of course, a multi-disciplinary study and not a concentration in itself, explaining the lack of such programs. The closest related concentrations would be Atmospheric Sciences and . . . Meteorology. Go figure. It would also help if budding future climatologists paid a bit more attention in physics and maths classes; and maybe went outside and looked up a bit more often as well

    Van Grungy – Of course McCarthy was right about “commies.” He was able to go so far because everyone understood he was right (as anyone over about 30 would remember a time when The Party was a mainstream part of American politics), at least up to a point. There is a difference, however, between McCarthy being right and McCarthyISM being right.

    Defense of the Constitution can only be accomplished by invoking it, not subverting it. Is that not the very goal of the “commies” in the first place? Pete Seeger was right in invoking the First Amendment rather than the Fifth. If we wish to defend the republican ideals of American Constitutional Government against National Socialism the very first thing we should do is to refuse to invoke its methods, otherwise, as Thoreau pointed out, you might just as well fold up shop and succumb immediately; as the end result, either way, is the same.

    Congressional witch hunts, Star Chambers, Super Constitutional Secret Police and their networks of [Your color's name here] Shirts/Patriotic Citizen Informants are the enemy; not the solution.

    What made American government truly unique in its time of founding was that it was built on philosophical boundaries, not geographical ones. The Ideal is the thing, not the Thing. Part of that philosophical ideal was that the ideal in question was one of The People; not the government. Thus only The People can defend it; not the government.

    Any member of The People who wish to take a stand in this fight might well be advised to identify those who oppose this Ideal and bring them into the light of day, but to do so entirely within the bounds of the Ideal itself. A simple and easy first step in such identification can be accomplished by simply looking up the word coined to represent the repudiation of Idealistic government action: “realpolitik.”

    And why any of the above might be relevant to the current subject and that of this forum is, of course, as many here express knowledge of, because the Climate Change issue is, at core, a socio-political one. It is the ideals of The Enlightenment that are under attack; rational thought and thus science itself – not a specific fact or theory of science.

    When The Algore says, “The science is settled, the debate is over,” what he is saying is that the fate of science has been settled (within his “community”, there shall be no debate.

    “Consensus” is, of course, a political philosophy, not a scientific one – and most of us who read this forum know what political philosophies stand on the “consensus” plank without having to name them – and which stand on the plank of civil management of discord.

  131. Djozar says:

    Thanks kfg – just what I expected about the Climatology degrees. I kept hearing why that we shouldn’t question the experts, but even though I only have a BS in mechanical engineering, I could make their logic work. I’ve had enough thermo, chemistry, physics and fluid dynamics that I think I can work through a scientific argument.
    The “consensus” issue is being pushed at all levels – my former employer wasted $250K on consensus “trainer”.

  132. kuhnkat says:

    “For centuries science has made the world better for all of us. It’s made our food, our air, and our water safer.”

    And engineers had nothing at all to do with taking the scientist’s delusions and converting them into concrete technology?? What hubris.

  133. I received an email resulting from this thread, I think, in my personal inbox this morning. I’d prefer it if readers kept to emailing the UCS address Mr. Watts provided in the original post. I’m on vacation and will be back at work on Monday. I’ll see if I can make time to respond to your emails next week.

    I’ve had a lot of interesting interactions with climate skeptics over the past few years. Most of the time, I’ve found correspondents are more interested in dropping their talking points and some vitriol into my inbox rather than engaging in a real exchange of views. That said, there have been a few instances where I’ve learned a lot from corresponding with a skeptic and vice-versa. That happens when the skeptic is willing to apply their critical thinking skills as much to their own views as to the views of mainstream climate science.

    I would rather not address any of the comments here. I’ve found such interactions often turn into a shooting gallery, with nasty commenters far outweighing thoughtful ones. Typically, those interactions remind me of the old Monty Python “Argument Clinic” sketch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y.

    Thanks,
    Aaron Huertas

  134. Jon says:

    I left this message for the Union:

    Flaccid science requires external support.
    Weak science requires strong defense.
    Agendized science is junk science.
    Coercive science isn’t science at all.

    But, robust science will stand on its own.

    I’m afraid I see the “Union of Concerned Scientists” zealously embracing the first four articles.

    I implore you to try robustness

  135. peter laux says:

    I sent them this

    “At last, we need something more to fight these horrid skeptics with. Who keep telling me to provide proof and evidence of Man Made global warming.
    They mock me with taunts such as “The opposite of skepticism is gullibility”, I call them deniers but they laugh and point out that ad hominum attacks are intellectual low rent and signs of mental defeat.

    I used to be able to take the high ground with several weapons but alas, no more. I would post the hockey stick graph but they broke it and our ‘ark of the covenant’ the computer models once seemed so certain but they only brings howls of mockery and derision with its ever apparent uselessness to even predict what day tomorrow is. Whenever I deride a skeptic for not being a climatologist they point out I am neither nor is al gore or most other warmists.
    Whenever I point at peer review, they point at its corruption from climategate, making my points worsen as they reveal a tiny incestuous cabal of reviewers then reveal their PR papers – its horrible.
    I even have one who challenges me with $10,000.00 for one tiny proof that I don’t possess – what am I to do?
    Whenever I site an expert to put them down, they sneer at my ‘appeal to authority’ as they call it and deride me for being such a arse licking, subservient and non-thinking dupe.

    We know man must be changing climate because of smoke and that.
    Especially because nature is good and man is bad.
    We know this because its true an all deniers are in the pay of evil big oil and they are bad.
    We know this because last week was hot and this week is cold and an ice berg was seen.

    please tell mr rupet murdock these facts or try to find one that links naughty mankind with AGW,

    yours sincerely,

    Ang StRiddyn”

    Have some fun, mock them, they deserve it for being traitors to science.

  136. E.M.Smith says:

    Well, it’s interesting that they have a public statement that they are in the propaganda and media intimidation business. So their “game” is to have a leveraged viral media manipulation rather than an ‘open market of ideas’. Sounds about right for the style and tactics of that side.

    FWIW, I use the presence of that kind of opinion manipulation as a giant Red Flag for when someone is a weasel and prone to deceptive tactics. Someone not to trust. Tends to be a very good indicator. Not 100%, but certainly over 75%. Sounds like they read Saul Alinsky during their formative years…

  137. austin7 says:

    lets not forget john brogden’s famous list of press garbage for gw causes.
    see numberwatch.co.uk

  138. Omahamama says:

    I would be less concerned with so called ‘global warming’ that they accuse humans of creating. The global warming they should be worried about is that which the scientists are creating by denying the existence of God and the liberal media that spouts wrong as right, and right as wrong. I would worry about the ‘warming’ and fire they will find themselves in for all eternity as they create hell on earth. I read the back of the book and we win and get a new planet from Heaven which God will take care of because HE created it. Stop worshipping the planet and blaming everyone else for the consequences of your own selfish power hungry atheistic hedonism. No amount of taxes or science is going to prevent the real global warming. ALL OF THE PLANETS ARE GETTING WARMER!!!! IT’S THE SUN STUPID!!!!! You best turn to ‘THE SON’ if you don’t want to burn FOREVER!!!! did I miss anything? GOD BLESS YOU AND THE U.S.A.!!!!

  139. grienpies says:

    I just left this message:

    Dear Mr. Huertas

    I discovered today that your on your own webpage science is abused! See
    https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2339&s_src=wac&s_subsrc=website
    It is stated there that it is wrong to claim that arctic sea ice is increasing. Well given the absolute low on 2007 the ice is indeed some what increasing! Just check the facts! http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    Your immediate attention and action on this matter is highly appreciated.

    Best Regards

Comments are closed.