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...
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/sbi/eng/03.pdf
IPCC budget about 55million usd staff about 140 what a waste odf resources
and the US pays a large chunk of it !!
Her statements are pure racism.
Goldenberg just lives up to the old saw, “If you want a stick to beat a dog, any stick will do.” Her point, even if true, is irrelevant to whether the ICCC speakers are correct. Of course they are. Anyone looking objectively at the science will conclude that.
But attacking Goldenberg also obscures the possibility that she may also be right. Skeptics are largely white males. Why? Because they are largely seniors or holders of endowed chairs, who are past being held hostage by a corrupt funding and recognition system. It’s the demographics, stupid! There is tremendous fear pervading academia on this issue that prevents many from speaking out on what is really going on.
Just Want Truth: “It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with science.
This is a typical political smear. It is a dirty shot below the belt.”
The article is called “Meet the sceptics”. It is not specifically about science, but rather about AGW scepticism as a social and political phenomenon. In that case, it is relevant to list some demographic factors of the group the journalist is describing.
As for political smears, at this very conference Richard Lindzen accused AGWers of “coopting science on behalf of a political movement” and claimed that this process “has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science”.
These claims were echoed by others such as John Sununu. So it looks like at least some sceptics managed to mix politics in with the science. In that case, it is fair to point out the political affiliations of the attendees at a conference where key people are making political claims.
Suzanne Goldenberg clearly has a point of view and is writing for a particular audience, but her comments were wholly appropriate given the political nature of the conference.
Here’s an event of right-wingers that got little attention. . .
The Intelligence Squared Green Festival on Climate Change January 2009 http://iq2greenfestival.com/
I had to wonder if David Bellamy was the patsy.
Mr Goddard, your quotation from Joanne Simpson is just a tad selective – no? Here is how the ‘respected climate scientist; continues:
What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.
Naughty.
Source: http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/
Suppose that Suzanne Goldenberg had of written that a group of scientists were irrelevant because they were mainly black, or Muslim, or women? She would likely have lost her job and faced other actions.
Hatred against white males is apparently considered acceptable by many western governments – i.e. self-hatred. But what really disturbs me is Ms. Goldenberg’s apparent desire to marginalize mature people with experience. Perhaps should would prefer to turn policy over this younger group?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/02/jim-hansens-newfound-peers-at-the-capitol-climate-action/
The remarkable contradiction we see in the media is that the issue of social decay is frequently raised in programmes examining the modern youth. They often note that the youth do not respect their elders in modern societies as they do in other more traditional cultures, and this is the cause of immoralism and youth crime.
Then the same media outlets turn around the next day and say that the youth should discard the hard work of older generations and join together to change the world that ‘their parents destroyed’.
So we end up with more social disconnect between the generations and the youth taken advantage of by a wave of environmental zealots who want to change society so that they can become tomorrow’s elites.
Brendan H:
Lindzen is exactly right, and he would have told more of the truth if he didn’t have to work with some of those same corrupt individuals. Anyone who apologizes for these obstructionists coopting science for politics is part of the problem, and is no defender of science.
To understand how these radicals have corrupted the climate peer review system and other aspects of climate science, see Lindzen’s detailed exposé here: click
John Philip said 2 50 04
In reply to Steve Goddard -who you said had incompletely quoted Joanne Simpson- you completed it as follows.
“What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.”
You seem to have accidentally left of the next sentence which was an integral part of this quote. It said;
“But as a scientist I remain skeptical.”
To be fair you did give the link but were as selective as you accuse Steve of being.
Naughty
Source: http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/
Tonyb
“Suzanne Goldenberg recently complained in the UK Guardian about the ICCC (International Conference on Climate Change) global warming “deniers” :
The 600 attendees (by the organizer’s 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.”
It is reprehensible to try to marginalize any group, even grumpy old white men, through racial profiling.
However, here is a serious human health crisis that demands immediate attention:
It is probable that Earth is now cooling rather than warming. Nevertheless a huge number of journalists and a handful of scientists fervently believe that Earth is catastrophically warming. This is a strange and worrisome phenomenon.
Global warming alarmists (“warmists”) are suffering from a newly discovered cognitive disorder called “climate dyslexia”, whereby warming and cooling are confused and even reversed. It is apparent that warmists are emotionally fragile and suffer from delusions, as described in Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841). Warmists suffer undue stress, often believing that Earth is doomed because of the activities of humankind. Warmists shout down and abuse those who try to reason with them and curb their anxieties. Warmists are pathogenic, spreading their baseless fears and even brainwashing little school children through toxic propaganda.
But warmists are not evil, they are sick and need our help – climate dyslexia is a serious mental illness.
Since vast sums of money are now being made available by the Obama administration to bail out defunct insurance companies, banks, and automakers, and to run worthless climate computer models, surely a few billion more could be set aside to find a cure for this new affliction. Climate dyslexia can kill – as evidenced by the threats made by warmists against legitimate climate scientists who publicly reject the myth of catastrophic humanmade global warming.
We have established a non-profit foundation, entitled the Centre to Fight Climate Dyslexia, to combat this scourge on humanity. We will be petitioning Congress for funding. Our mission is to eliminate climate dyslexia within thirty years.
/Spoof off/ 😉
That is quite a rant, RoyfOMR, and displays a rather stunning ignorance of both the history of “the argument” and the stakes involved.
In order to understand how and why things are the way they are (and yes, it has become an all-out war, of sorts), it is necessary to understand the history.
Richard Courtney provides one such history, and gives good insight into how politics was injected into the hypothesis of manmade global warming (which eventually, and conveniently became manmade GCC).
It is important to understand that the AGW/CC side isn’t really about science at all. They either refuse to debate, or if, in the rare instance they do, they get their a%#! kicked. Indeed, they claim “the debate is over”, and demonize, slander, and ridicule anyone who dares speak against their much-vaunted “consensus”. The subject of this post is just one such instance among countless examples of this.
Let’s call it journo-terrorism, the abject failure of the mainstream media to report the opposing views on so-called global warming to the American people (oops! I mean climate change). Led by their noses, by James Hansen, Al Gore and their enviro-comrades, the public is being fed a pack of baloney. It is so easy to find the truth, but who will find a way to get the media munchkins to search it out and report it. I believe that most of the mainstream media suffers from cognitive dissonance (Fancy words for, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.”)
With that in mind, let me share this real life experience I had one morning while having breakfast with a friend in October 2008. I call him “Damascus Don.” He likes that title.
We were talking about global warming. He said that global temperatures are rising. So I asked how he knew that and he replied, “Thousands of scientists say so.” I asked who they were and he said he read about them in a book and heard mention of them on Air America. I then told him about the Chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, and Secretary General of the WMO (World Meterological Organization), Michel Jarraud, both of whom have acknowledged that global temperatures have not risen so far this century, possibly since 1998. That did not change his mind. “Temperatures are rising,” he said. I then pointed out that the four major satellite temperature tracking systems (NASA/GISS, UAH, RSS, HADCRU) recorded that temperatures have actually dropped about a half degree since 2007. Right over his head. “Temperatures are rising and if we don’t cut back on CO2 emissions, it will be disaster,” Don said. I then asked him if the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) agreed with Pacharui, Jarraud and the tracking systems, would that change his mind. Don replied, “No it would not. There’s no point in you trying to change my mind.” Those were his exact words! Finally, I asked him if the scientists he read and heard about should contact the IPCC, WMO, NASA and NAS to inform them they are wrong. “Yes, they should.” Again, his exact words. This is classic cognitive dissonance, the willful and complete disregard for truth in light of the most compeling evidence. I enjoy talking with my friend, but on this issue he is like many others who knee-jerkedly believe, and with no intent of doing their own homework, that man made CO2 is raising temperatures to the point of environmental disaster.
When Joanne said the part that Steve is accused of omitting she was not expressing her opinion, but saying what policy and decision makers are doing. She then says she is skeptical about the whole process. How can decisions be made on incomplete and contaminated data?
Warmists suffer undue stress, often believing that Earth is doomed because of the activities of humankind. Warmists shout down and abuse those who try to reason with them and curb their anxieties. Warmists are pathogenic, spreading their baseless fears and even brainwashing little school children through toxic propaganda.
I don’t think Warmists is the right word for them. I have an accurate term that even goes with a logo that they intend to popularise.
“That was incredibly fast for such a thorough analysis.”
Thank you. Actually, analysis of thieves can be done quite rapidly — when you’re not morally blinded by cognitive dissonance.
The UN is composed of career kleptocrats who have consistently refused to allow any outside audit of its spending, including how much each of its 100,000+ bureaucrats receives in [totally tax-free] pay and benefits. Our money floods into the UN black hole, and we don’t even get a “thank you.”
The UN refuses to disclose how much of our money they lavishly spend on salaries and on their trips to Bali and other resorts, with the expensive caviar, brie, lobster dinners, and very expensive hotel rooms — but now UN Sec-Gen Ban Ki Moon has the gall to label the U.S. a “deadbeat” because the taxpayers subsidizing the corrupt UN aren’t handing over our money to him fast enough.
It’s time to admit that the UN was a mistake and an enormous drain of resources, and to withdraw from that nest of thieves; evict them from their posh, rent-free headquarters at Turtle Bay; start collecting long overdue property taxes from those expensive digs, and fines from long overdue parking tickets that they arrogantly rack up daily and refuse to pay, and use the $Billions saved annually to reward our real friends, instead of lining the pockets of our enemies.
John Philip,
You mysteriously truncated Joanne Simpson’s next sentence.
But as a scientist I remain skeptical.
Very naughty.
“..IPCC budget about 55million usd staff about 140..”
Actually, you’re off on staffing – “… approved the staffing table for the biennium 2008–2009 at 140.5 (88 Professional and 52.5 General Service) posts under the core budget. In addition, 178 posts were established under fee-based income” http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/sbi/eng/03.pdf
So, 318
And ‘large chunk’ was %22%
So, again:
That was incredibly fast for such a thorough analysis.
You can click on Pap or Cli to see what they’ve published. Papers usually list affiliation at the time of publication. PhD links to when degree was awarded, by who, and area.
So, you have proof of:
“..UN/IPCC is staffed entirely with political appointees..”
and
“..IPCC is thoroughly corrupt..”
and
“..primary agenda of separating the West, and U.S. taxpayers in particular, from $Billions every year ..”
?
Or proof that ’70’s science classes had programs on the coming ice age?
And maybe clicking on the about link would clue you in on ‘Global Ecology’ rather than hoping some snarkiness will cover that lack of information.
And the on the newest (and off-topic) screed:
Cites for any of these? Or are we to accept them on your Ipse Dixit?
“The UN is composed of career kleptocrats who have consistently refused to allow any outside audit of its spending…”
“The UN refuses to disclose how much of our money they lavishly spend on salaries and on their trips to Bali and other resorts, with the expensive caviar,…”
And, you do realize of course, that the list of AR4 scientists isn’t a list of UN scientists, right?
Yes, down with old white men, especially anyone who does not believe in Hope, Change and Environmental Hysteria! 😛
This is Van Jones’ Power Shift keynote. It comes across as a religious sermon at a mega church where young brainwashed activists are encouraged to wear T-shirts with their own faces on them (to make them believe they have maintained their individuality and are not brainwashed).
He’s a passionate man but I don’t think he understand the dangerous side effects of his actions. Here a more likable down-to-Earth Van Jones talking about The Third Wave of Environmentalism
Yes, he said Third Wave…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave
Lucy Skywalker wrote:
“dreaming into being the skeptics’ wiki we need, alongside NIPCC and ICCC, to correct the record so that even bimbos like Monbiot cannot ignore it, nor his followers, and I’m encouraging others here to do the same.”
A wiki would be a huge and contentious project. If anybody out there has the time and computer knowledge, here’s a more modest first step, which I’ve suggested before. Forum software like Invision’s Power Board provides a hierarchical tree-structured set of directories to threads that are categorized by topic.
The first step would be to set up a directory and sub-directory structure within this forum and move (copy and paste) each of the threads in this blog under its appropriate heading. (E.g., Bad Weather Stations, Sunspots, Anomalous (cold) Temperature reports, Flubs and Typos by the Other Side, Arctic Ice, Antarctica, Sea Levels, etc.
Second would be to curry and prune the threads by removing stuff that’s not worth keeping (about 67%).
Third, organize the back-and-forth exchanges between participants so that the items immediately follow one another.
Fourth, merge blog-threads dealing with the same topic.
Fifth, move the off-topic posts into threads where they belong.
Once this was done, the forum could be mined to create a wiki and a FAQ and a talking-points document and a point/counter-point list, etc.
To enlarge on my previous comment; does anyone have the breakdown on who was primarily qualified as a ‘climate scientist’ at the Copenhagen IPCC conference, and how many others majored in ooh, lets say another discipline?
Just asking to gain enlightenment.
I was once pushed by a Green about the funding that the 40 or so thinktanks that Exxon-Mobile has donated money to. Suzanne Goldenberg refers to the same donations and makes it appear to the gullible reader that it is a disinformation campaign.
Well, I looked at the figure and the reasons for the funding and calculated that on average each thinktank recieved $40,000 a year over 20 years for research and advice.
That is hardly a financially rewarding disinformation campaign. If those thinktanks wanted to make more money they would earn the same amount selling suits in a retail store. They’d make five times that money selling cars (or about twice as much in today’s recession).
And they would make about 20 times more money releasing Alarmist articles, books and films.
So I won’t be applying for an Exxon-Mobil grant anytime soon. I’m off to work as a tattooist or something, way better money :-p
Aron,
Numbers? Cites?
And remember that Exxon isn’t the only company or frontgroup funding ‘research and advice’: Western Fuels Association,National Coal Association, American Petroleum Institute …
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Of course, if you have the science chops “A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels.” http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm?cnn=yes
“Copenhagen IPCC conference”
Actually, that’s coming up in December, but the March Congress page has the list of speakers and events that just concluded. Many of the presentations are available also. – http://www.erantis.com/events/denmark/copenhagen/climate-congress/index.htm
Is there equivalent information for the ICCC?