Guest post by Steven Goddard
Suzanne Goldenberg recently
complained in the UK Guardian about the
ICCC (International Conference on Climate Change) global warming “deniers” :
The 600 attendees (by the organisers’ count) are almost entirely white males, and many, if not most, are past retirement age. Only two women and one African-American man figure on the programme of more than 70 speakers.
In the UK, profiling like that might be considered a hate crime if it were about any other group other than the one she described. But that isn’t the point. Below is a
photo of the vaunted
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change) taken at their last meeting. The spitting image of her description of the I
CCC. No doubt Ms. Goldenberg considers the adult white men in the I
PCC to be great visionaries, leading the noble fight against climate Armageddon.
Here are some other scientists active in climate change:
Jim Hansen:
Hansen at a climate conference in Denmark 2009.
Left to Right: Dr. Gavin Schmidt (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), Dr. Paul Knappenberger (President of the Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum), Dr. Wally Broecker (Columbia University), and Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert (University of Chicago) pose for a photo after the first of the Global Climate Change forum. Forum I was held at the Adler Planetarium.
Is it a big surprise that most
senior scientists are adult white males? And what criteria did she use to choose the expertise of one group of prestigious scientists to the exclusion of another? Does she consider her personal climate expertise to be superior to
Dr. Richard Lindzen, to the point where she can choose to simply ignore his opinion?
Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Ph.D., (born February 8, 1940) is a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his research in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves. He has published over 200 books and scientific papers. He was the lead author of Chapter 7 (physical processes) of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC on global warming (2001). He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the political pressures surrounding climate scientists.
It is one thing to question the scientific conclusions of an organisation, and a completely different matter to make an ad hominem attack against an entire group – based on such witless criteria.
H/T to Aron for finding the article
Like this:
Like Loading...
No doubt Gavin made those very points before you did, and independently to boot.
Suzanne Goldenberg claims to be a journalist, but by the language she uses she clearly identifies herself as a partisan looking to stir up controversy and sell newspapers. Such types are easy to catch in the hypocrisy of applying unequal criteria to both sides of a debate.
Does she believe that when one retires they lose the ability to read. to do research, to reach their own conclusions? What actually happens is the pressure to keep their job by remaining politically correct is relieved. Also, is Good Science determined by the gender and racial balance of a group?
Plenty of white males at the Copenhagen conference-is that also to be decried by the Guardian reporter? Have aatached a blog from there.
How to Talk about Global Warming with Climate Change Deniers
Green Manners: This could get ugly…
By Brian Merchant
Brooklyn, NY, USA | Mon Feb 09 07:00:00 EST 2009
AP
READ MORE ABOUT:
Climate Change | Green Challenges | Green Manners
If you’re reading this, then there’s a pretty good chance that you agree that climate change is a prominent threat to human beings and the entire natural world. If that’s not the case, then I look forward to reading your nasty comment, which perhaps shall include a link to the Wall Street Journal’s latest climate change-denying op-ed or a Rush Limbaugh radio broadcast.
Apologies if that seemed haughty, but it’s tough to have patience with those who willfully deny a process that the near-entirety of the scientific community has cited as one of the gravest threats to our earth. Which brings me to today’s Green Manners: approaching the topic of global warming in the company of climate change deniers.
Rule #1: Do not sarcastically refer to the WSJ’s op-ed pieces or Rush Limbaugh to demean your audience.
No, I suppose I got off on the wrong foot here. There are better ways to approach climate change in polite company. See, global warming is its own breed of elephant in the room—it’s not like religion, philosophy, or even politics, about which a person’s views can be respected even if they’re in contrast to yours. No, climate change is happening, plain and simple. But discussing global warming with climate change deniers sometimes seems like trying to convert them to Paganism. They look at you like you’re crazy, maybe laugh at you, or get defensive. So how do we broach the topic?
Depends. Here are a few of the most common non-scientific qualms people have with climate change, and the suggested course of action for each:
They say there’s no proof, seems plenty cold out here to me.
This is what we’ll call your level one denier—they haven’t given the idea much thought, and aren’t overly concerned about it either way. No need to be overly forceful here. You can just quietly highlight some of the main points and perhaps refer them to a study or two—NOT An Inconvenient Truth, unless you’re certain your acquaintance harbors no animosity to the ol’ Gore. (More on this later) Plant a seed and don’t push it—there’s hope here.
They don’t want to feel bad about driving their SUV, and get defensive.
Hey, my climate change accepting parents still drive an SUV. But they’ve recognized it’s not ideal, and limit driving it to when they only need to haul a bunch of equipment or people. Even a bona fide TreeHugger drives an SUV. It’s not ideal, but it’s not the end of the world.
They say it’s an elaborate hoax perpetrated by a group of global warming ‘alarmists’ who are engaged in a scheme to fabricate the apocalypse. They might also mention that we never really landed on the moon.
Walk away from this one—you’re not going to make any headway here. For whatever reason, this guy’s got a grudge against environmentalism in any form, and will not be swayed by logic. Just nod politely, say you disagree, and leave it be. Then make fun of him behind his back with your friends.
They say that Al Gore is a windbag.
They might also call him a hypocrite and say he’s just trying to gain political power. Remind your acquaintance that climate change is not Al Gore, and that they exist independently of one another.
More Important Global Warming Info to Help Dissuade Deniers:
The 4 Stages of Global Warming Denial
Warning: Effects of Global Warming Include Death
Global Warming and Tornados
Children Already Bearing Brunt of Global Warming
Got a gnawing question about green social graces? Drop us a line at etiquette (at) treehugger (dot) com.
Absolutely stunning….
I have no reasonable comment on this and the mentality of Suzanne Goldenberg without getting snipped
sigh
Yes well, it’s the Guardian so what else is new?
I notice the other day George Monbiot in the Guardian was expressing ‘animal panic’ (literally his words) at the thought that if fossil fuel use continues to increase at its current exponential rate for a mere 100 years then the temperature of the planet would increase by a few degrees.
Fair enough but a few weeks ago he was expressing the same level of panic over the fact that fossil fuels are imminently about to run out.
So…he is panic stricken that fossil fuels are about to run out AND that the use of those fuels will increase exponentially for at least another century. He is panicking over two mutually exclusive eventualities simultaneously!
Conclusion: the Guardian never was and never will be a bastion of logic, common sense or even consistency.
amazing !
Suzanne Goldenberg isn’t much into checking facts or details.
Not that we’re into labels or profiles but Dr. Willie Soon gave a talk to the deniers.
I find the phrase ‘past retirement age’ to be most offensive. Continuing to do what one loves to do, regardless of whatever that is keeps a lot of folks going and making useful contributions.
In the UK, we have a popular University course called Science Studies. The reason it is popular is that it doesn’t contain any maths, or science.
It’s sole purpose is to prove that science is a conspiracy by dead white males to denigrate and hegemonize the ‘wisdom’ of ‘other’ cultural heritages.
Ms Goldenberg sounds like the stereotypical graduate.
But the head of the IPCC is an Indian! That makes the whole organization more diverse.
The wit and wisdom of Suzanne Goldberg
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/12/climate-change-sceptic-environment
Unlike Obama, who owed his victory to millions of supporters and donors, the climate change deniers operate within narrow bands of support: the conservative wing of the Republican party and the extreme end of the Christian Right.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/26/toilet-roll-america
“American taste for soft toilet roll ‘worse than driving Hummers’: Extra-soft, quilted and multi-ply toilet roll made from virgin forest causes more damage than gas-guzzlers, fast food, or McMansions”
Gee I wonder how many trees are cut down to supply newsprint for “The Guardian”? Its time a Euro per kilogram tax on newsprint.
You should read the rubbish in todays’ Daily Telegraph!
I fear this is perfeclty normal. Those who are young, need to feed their children and needs the money. As well as for their intitute (or laboratory) as for themselves.
For regular, normal non-genious researcher it is impossible to get official grants ( is this the right English word ? I mean money) when one takes an alternative viewpoint about global warming as it is defined by the Religorious intstitutions. I have experienced that at full strength. Being involved (and employed) with textile projects I got officially money as much as I wonat so long I walk along the arguments of the Goracle. But one day I submitted a project called “alternative communication about the impact of Textile industry on the supposed global warming”. After that I did not get any project approved…..and I had to leave the academic world.
So I am not supprised that people who ask questions about this Goracle fortune-telling are already retired and have noting to loose !
The hate crime that is being perpetrated is against the whole of humanity, or at least those unlucky to be outside of the 100-200 million considered to be sustainable and therefore not harmful to Mother Earth. Thomas Malthus would be proud. Or maybe they would prefer Jonathon Swift’s modest proposal for the rest of us.
You should comment about the dross in todays Daily Telegraph!
foinavon (08:15:25) :
How many papers are in AR-4 are from the following demographics: African, Japanese, Korean, Taiwan, Brazil, or Russian?
Matt Dernoga (07:32:49) :
http://news.aol.com/article/climate-changes/376821
————————————-
Yep, and be sure to run the slideshow. The photography is quite good actually.
But do not, I repeat, do not have a mouthful of coffee when you get to the dire prediction on slide 11.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/03/political-conspiracy.html
The IPCC would be the quasi-scientific arm of the EU, which is the European Arm of the new world government to be based upon the UN. If you doubt me, it wasn’t I who said it but “one must look to Dr John Sununu’s speech at the Heartland Institute conference earlier this week. Clearly, without equivocation, he stated what we all know to be true. The activism we are seeing is not about global warming. Global warming is not the real target, says Sununu, but just a convenient demon around which anti-growth and anti-development activism can be mounted.”
Click one the link for the story, and one of the most insightful yet succinct tellings of what is going on underneath the Green mask, and why it matters to everybody…even those bored by climate science and/or politics.
Johng is right: in fact the Telegraph has had nonsensical articles on global warming two days running now. My objections did not make it through moderation.
They will be firing Christopher Booker any day now.
You could handle this by growing a bad-ass diversity beard, very much in vogue with Wacademics and folks who’s residences tend to favor bus stations and bridge abutments. It’s ok to be Caucasian if you layer in some ‘tude via bad hair or clothes. This has the added benefit of pleasing the AGW crowd and making you appear to be in synch with their world view.
Bring forth the Patchouli!!!!
An interesting compilation of 619 contributing authors in AR4 –
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/AR4wg1_authors_table.html
photo link from http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/index.html
As one who inhabits academia, I found Ms. Goldenberg’s comment is not at all surprising. In most higher education institutions nowadays, if one deviates from the preferred orthodoxy within the college/university, the “race, gender, ethnicity” card is always the first rejoinder. This is especially true if the one throwing the ad hominem cannot make an argument based on reason and facts.
In the past, this worked quite well in putting a stop on people from expressing a contrary opinion. However, I’ve found the best counter is to respond with humor and and out right “laugh in their face”. That they can’t stand in the least.
You deny AGW?? Why of course you do! You must be a (racist, sexist, general bigot… insert your choice)!
Fair or not, the climate issue is political, and thus one of perception. Public perception, like it or not, is very important.
Back a few months when I read the ICCC roster of speakers I complained right here in this blog that it looked like a pow-wow for a bunch white Manchester capitalists.
I urged in this forum to recruit more foreign speakers to give it the appearance of a more global movement. I think the ICCC made some effort, but not enough!
So now live with the attacks from the media – as unfair as they may be.
Maybe the ICCC will learn from experience.
The public relations by the ICCC for this conference was also miserable. Do they even know what media is?
OT? ….from “Dalton Minimum Returns”
http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/2009/03/sun-influence-under-estimated-.html
you are trying to argue against facts. many “active” “sceptic” scientists are retired.
the IPCC will, by it s very nature, be more diverse.