The most slimy essay ever from the Guardian and Columbia University

Opinion by Anthony Watts

There has never been a time at WUWT that I’ve used the word “slimy” in a headline. This is a special case. I thought of about a half dozen words I could have used and finally decided on this one. I chose it because of precedence in a similar situation where Steve McIntyre wrote his rebuttal to a similar piece of amateur journalism entitled Slimed by Bagpuss the Cat Reporter.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is the Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University

Last week, the Guardian invited me to participate in their new online story forum. They were seeking the input from climate sceptics on issues they were writing about. They especially wanted my input. I said I’d consider it, but was a bit hesitant given the Guardian’s reporting history. But, after some discussion with one of the reporters, it seemed like a genuine attempt at outreach. I suggested that if they really wanted to make a gesture that would make people take notice, they should consider banning the use of the word “denier” from climate discourse in their newspaper. Nobody I know of in the sceptic community denies that the earth has gotten warmer in the past century. I surely don’t. But we do question the measured magnitude, the cause, and the scientific methods.

Now, any progress that has been made in outreach by the Guardian has been dashed by the most despicably stupid newspaper article I’ve ever seen about climate skeptics. The Guardian for some reason thought it would be a good idea to print it while at the same time trying to reach across the aisle to climate skeptics for ideas. Needless to say, they’ve horribly botched that gesture with the printing of this article.

Here’s the headline and link to the Guardian article:

Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain

It’s full of the kind of angry, baseless, stereotypical innuendo I’d expect Joe Romm to write. Instead, the writer is Jeffrey D Sachs. who is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, home to NASA GISS.

And it’s not just the Guardian. Apparently this article has been shopped around. It made it into The National in Abu Dhabi which you can read here. Apparently the article from Columbia’s Sachs was distributed by an outfit called The Project Syndicate.

A check of their website show the author list, some of the stories they are pushing to media, and they seem to be rather vague about where their money comes from. In their contact and support page all they offer is a PO box for their HQ in Prague:

Project Syndicate PO Box 130 120 00 Prague 2 Czech Republic

So much for transparency.

Back to the article. After reading it, one can see that Sachs is simply repeating the same sort of drivel we get from trolls every day on climate science discussions. Baseless accusations of being involved with deep pockets, connections to tobacco, denial of links to cancer, and other assorted decades old slimy talking points that have nothing to do with the real issue at hand: scientific integrity in climate science.

It is clear that professor Sachs didn’t do any original research for this article, he simply repeated these same slimy talking points we see being pushed by internet trolls and NGO’s like Greenpeace. He provided no basis for the claims, only the innuendo. It’s a pathetic job of journalism. It’s doubly pathetic that the Guardian allowed this to be printed at a time when they were reaching out to skeptics.

It seems incomprehensible to Sachs and others like him that people like myself, Steve McIntyre, Jeff Id,  Joe D’Aleo, John Coleman, and others who write about climate science issues might have original thoughts and do original research of our own. It seems impossible to him that an “army of Davids”, such as the readers and contributors to CA and WUWT, could shake the money bloated foundations of climate science today with daily blog posts, FOI requests, and commentary. No it had to be big money funding these skeptics somewhere.

Newsflash: It’s worse than you thought. It’s a growing revolution of like minded people worldwide that want to see the climate science done right and without the huge monied interests it has fallen prey to.. Tobacco, big oil, and other assorted contrived boogeymen haven’t anything to do with skeptics that question CRU, GISS, NOAA, etc.on these pages and the pages of other blogs.

Oh sure they’ll say “but you went to the Heartland convention, and they took money from Exxon once, they defended smokers rights,  that makes you complicit.” Bull. I’ve made my objections loudly known to Heartland on these issues, but the fact is that no other organizations stepped up to help skeptics with a conference to exchange information. While people like Sachs were denouncing “deniers”, and Al Gore was leading multimillion dollar media campaigns  saying we were “flat earthers” and “moon landing deniers”, no scientific organizations were stepping forward to ask the tough questions, or to even help regular people like you and me who were asking them. Had any such scientific organization had the courage, you can bet that skeptics would have flocked there. Instead these organizations all got on the consensus bandwagon.

The claims made that skeptics are connected to tobacco companies is ludicrous. It is especially ludicrous in my case.

So here’s my challenge to Professor Sachs. Give me ten minutes in a room with you. That’s all I need. I’ll tell you about my story related to tobacco. I’ll tell you how secondhand smoke most likely contributed to my profound hearing loss through a series of badly treated ear infections as a child, I’ll tell you about my efforts to get my parents to stop smoking , and then, I’ll tell you how I watched both of my parents die of tobacco related disease. I’ll tell you what I think of tobacco products and companies. I’ll tell you to your face. I promise you it won’t be pretty, I promise you that you’ll feel my pain caused by tobacco.

Finally, I’ll tell you what I think of you for writing this crap you market as journalism without asking leading skeptics any questions, but instead relying on this slimy innuendo that’s been repeated for years.

Professor Sachs, contact me by leaving a comment if you have personal integrity enough to hear it.

Contact Us

Mailing Address

The Earth Institute, Columbia University

405 Low Library, MC 4335

535 West 116th Street

New York, NY 10027

Inquiries

Please direct your inquiry to the appropriate department, as listed below:

General Inquiries

Judy Jamal

jjamal@ei.columbia.edu

phone: (212) 854-3830   fax: (212) 854-0274

Scientific Information or Expertise

The Earth Institute Directory is a comprehensive database of Earth Institute personnel, that is cross-referenced with databases of research projects, publications and expertise. By visiting the “Search by Subject” section of the directory, you can search for experts in a wide variety of scientific specializations.

Earth Institute Media Contact

Journalists may call these contacts for information. Other inquiries, please see separate entries below.

Kevin Krajick kkrajick@ei.columbia.edu

phone: (212) 854-9729 fax: (212) 854-6309

Kyu-Young Lee klee@ei.columbia.edu

phone: (212) 851-0798 fax: (212) 854-6309

Kim Martineau kmartineau@ei.columbia.edu

phone: (845) 365-8708 mobile: (518) 221-6890

Earth Institute Director Jeffrey Sachs

Media requests for Professor Sachs should be directed to Kyu-Young Lee at klee@ei.columbia.edu.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Andrew30

Scientific American can cancel him or we can cancel them.
Without a global warming crisis what would Scientific American be left with?
Scientific America stopped reporting on science and moved into technology and advocacy a long time ago.

Uisge Beatha

The more alarmists prefer ad hominem attacks instead of scientific evidence, I will be more skeptical about AGW/ACC.

Ricardo

I must admit that I read the Guardian article and thought; wow, this guy really doesn’t get it.
We have had similarly based rantings coming across in the Aussie newspapers over the last week.
I tend to view it as the last refuge for the alarmists.
Personally, I am sorry to hear about your circumstances. All I can say is keep fighting the good fight. With the leadership that you, and your peers, have shown; we will win, albeit that I fear the personal attacks will only get more vehement towards the bitter end as that is what terrorists do.
These eco-terrorists are no different.
Stay sane and to misquote “Nil carborundum illigitimi” (don’t let the bastards grind you down!)

Peter Whale

Hey, as the ground under their feet warps and slides they will be more and more desperate. Just keep hitting them with the truth and facts about their lies and data manipulation. The scientists are now beginning to be heard, the majority of those who did not go for the warmist scam will grow with the change of public knowledge on climate. The ability for these climate data manipulators to hide their misdemeanour’s is over. Now there is real science taking place replication will be essential for any future climate scenarios to be accepted by the public, no longer will lies and made up data be foisted on us.
WELL DONE THE TIPPING POINT HAS ARRIVED.

Roger Carr

Worries you far more than it does me, Anthony. I believe the general public has truly had a gutful of this kind of shrill screeching, and that Jeffrey Sachs’ is preaching only to the true believers — the rational amongst us (which I feel is the majority) will dismiss his empty rhetoric as too extreme to be taken seriously.
Effectively, I believe this professor damages his own cause. I am only surprised he did not write IT ALL IN UPPER CASE…

Veronica (England)

Well done Anthony. I read the Sachs piece and left a comment. If he really meant what he said he should name names, but I guess he would fall foul of the UK’s stringent libel laws if he did, because he has no evidence.
People like him can’t deal with the fact that honest people are looking for scientific answers, and don’t need a political agenda.
And as I write this, the snow is falling thick and fast once more outside my window in southern England. There’s been more snow over a more protracted time this winter than in any winter I remember and I am 46 years old.
I am very anti-tobacco too BTW, having seen my non-smoking grandmother die of lung cancer because she lived with my pipe-smoking grandfather. There are so many REAL things to be afraid of in the world without Sachs and friends having to make up new horror stories.

Paul Dennis

Antony, as a named scientist who suffered smear by innuendo 2 weeks ago in the both the Guardian and the Independent on Sunday I can understand your anger and despair. The debate being promulgated by many colleagues is immature and not worthy of the senior scientific posts they occupy.
Rarely does the debate rise above ad-hominem attacks, smearing by allusion to big oil and tobacco money, the repeating of discredited memes and recycling of facts that may well be true but by logical inference don’t mean the world is warming at an alarming rate.
Two weeks ago Roger Harabin made a public call for scientists who are actively publishing in the climate change and palaeoclimate literature to contact him with a view to taking the debate forward. I thought very carefully about doing so but in the end felt that the attempt to provide a forum for a mature and open debate on the science was a worthy effort and responded. I received a one liner which said “interested but very busy” (my paraphrase). I have received nothing else in the past 2 weeks.
This is from a journalist who had just made a very public announcement that he wanted to open the debate and bring it to a new level. The lack of response is deafening and one can only conclude that there are groups of people who do not want to shift the debate onto science. They are more comfortable slinging mud.
The truth is that the advent of the internet is having a cathartic effect on the closed unions of science that have their main foundations in universities and government research institutions. Publications in the peer reviewed literature are now available to everyone and we are discovering that there are very many scientists and lay people who have something very valid to bring to the debate. It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee. Climate science stimulates the public. Here we have a fantastic opportunity to engage in debate, enthuse, to act as role models, to demonstrate the scientific method and above all not to hide our disagreements beneath shallow, vituperative, lazy and inconsequential ad-hominem attacks. Those that resort to such tactics have already lost the argument.
Finally, I will be posting more at my blog very soon. It has been a crazy, hectic week!

Phillip Bratby

The article appeals to the true Guardianistsas as it confirms their dogma. The most popular comments on the Guarniad article however, consider this to be a ‘slimey’ article.

Espen

I wonder how this guy got a university position when he seems incapable of anything but cut & paste from old Greenpeace leaflets. I can very well understand your anger, Anthony, but this is “so last century” that the professor is really only damaging himself by writing such nonsense.
I followed the link to the “Project syndicate”, though, and was surprised to find this quite good commentary by Bjørn Lomborg:
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/lomborg57/English

This article made it into todays NZ Dominion Post in the NZ Herald. Wellington NZ is a very government-centric place, and many might buy into this BS.
I am happy to say that I put $20 into Steve McIntyre’s tip jar, and I do work indirectly via my bedroom for the oil industry, by creating what I believe to be well crafted software. I also, like Anthony and many here, live a very sustainable lifestyle, unlike Gore, Pachuri et al.
Comments in reply to the article : B0ll0cks, as we say in the UK

The ghost of Big Jim Cooley

You have to remember that this is typical of the Guardian. Journalism is not what it used to be, and the Guardian was NEVER a good newspaper. It’s recent standard has been terribly poor, and like all newspapers it’s becoming just another rag for promoting groundless eco nonsense and celebrity clap-trap. Resist the temptation to get into any bed with the Guardian. After all, Moonbat is one of its columnists – and that says more about this newspaper than I or anyone else ever could. Truly pathetic.

Chris Thorne

Sachs was part of the cadre of ivory-tower Western academic economists who in the 1990s advised the government of Russia, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that what they really needed was a big dose of economic “shock therapy”. In other words, immediately imposing market economics upon a socialist nation in which none of the necessary preconditions of stable free-market capitalism were in effect.
What resulted from that was colossal economic disruption, wrenching unemployment and inflation, the theft of 90% of the national wealth by brutal criminal oligarchs to whom assassination was an ordinary tool of business, and the horrific impoverishment of tens of millions of ordinary Russians, especially older pensioners.
I’m amazed that this man is still able to show his face in public, after having had his professional advice shown to be so catastrophically inept.

As a frequent comment poster here at WUWT and the author of http://www.PathsToKnowledge.net I can say with integrity and honest that I’ve made ZERO money, as in $0.00 in any currency, for ANY of my writings on the topic of climate science, the alleged AGW hypothesis, or any other related topic. Heck, paths to knowledge dot net doesn’t even have internet ads on it! In fact I’ll go one further, times have been tight and I do need work, so if anyone has a programming contract I sure could use one just about now. I write solely because it offends me how alleged scientists such as Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, et. al., etc… and political stooges such as Blood & Gore, Pauchari, Maurice Strong, David Suzuki roll in the money making all sorts of dooms day soothsaying projections out of thin air using bad and worse than bad, as in fraudulent, science. The false claims of idiots Jeffrey D Sachs are bordering on criminal fraud since they have zero basis in fact as far as I’m concerned.
Integrity of science is paramount. Period.

Doug in Dunedin

Anthony
In every newspaper I read where there are articles on climate change, whether pro or anti CAGW, the overwhelming opinion of the public response is sceptical of CAGW and these show contempt for the proponents. The public is not fooled and eventually the truth will become apparent – even to the likes of Obama and Brown both of whom seem to be bereft of any depth of thinking or common sense.
Your blog is a beacon of light.
Regards
Doug

Anthony,
Sachs is from Oak Park Michigan. So was Robert Ettinger. Cyrogenics; Climate science. Same thing. There I proved my case. can I get a nickle?

Capn Jack

Mr Watts with all due respect,
In Australia, we dont argue we point at the scoreboard. It’s the only thing that matters, talk is cheap, success is reward.
Some mark themselves on the enemies they put behind them, others mark themselves on the wins that matter.
Personally I suggest you take it as a back handed compliment, you had nothing and now Sachs has nothing except bitching about unfair treatment.
What one newspaper, in a world full of content. Check your clicks sir. THe negotation over sicence will not solved with a debate in psuedo science with a pseudo scientist, an economist who would not know a standard normal curve it it jumped up and ripped his throat out.
Rebut him here and move on.
Don’t get in the gutter. If he was an econometricist of standing all would know.

Paul Dennis,
You should drop Dr. Curry a note at Georgia tech. There are others who are interested in finding something good in all of this, improving science, and moving forward.

Stacey

Comment is free if you agree.
The Guardian was once a great newspaper brought low by this type of gutter journalism and junket science.
The attempts to associate reasonable people to extremist ideas because they won’t sign up to their unfounded alarmism is a disgrace.
Empty vessels make the most noise.

Andrew W

While I agree that the ‘money from big oil’ meme is nonsense, so is the ‘scientists exaggerate AGW to get grants’ meme, and that’s a claim often made in the comments here.

Oscar Bajner

Birds of a feather flack together : AL GORE, JEFFREY SACHS ADDRESS WAY FORWARD ON CLIMATE CHANGE http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P3-1221299571.html
Sachs is not much good at economics either.
(And yes, “flack” is not a typo 🙂 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flack?jss=0

UK Sceptic

You are talking about the Guardian, employer of Monbiot, a die-hard, unreconstituted arch-warmist. What did you really expect?
Worth a try though…

J.Hansford

Anthony… These kinds of articles are written for the Greenie advocates in their ranks, order to gee them up. To instill within them a sense of victimization and to turn skeptics into monsters….. It is classic propaganda 101 for dehumanizing the enemy.
This is and was their familiar ground…. however, I think they are becoming concerned that most people are not listening to them… All they are doing at the moment is mollifying their hard core supporters. Which is not a counter attack or productive, but instead, merely a holding action in a rout.
If this was a battle….. We, the skeptics, are in a prime position to overwhelm them as their action abates with no ground retaken….. We will destroy their position completely in our next thrust….. We will grind their hypothesis to dust under the facts of our observations:-)

I agree with the perception that the Guardian’s pimply-faced writers are still living at home, masturbating in their mom’s basements while writing their screeds [“They will pay. They. Will. PAY!… Unghh…“]. They should get out into the real world more often.

Kdkd

I likes the Guardian article. Along with the recent “Whatevergate” article over at realclimate I thought they summarised the current state of play rather well. I reckon that Alan needs to be completely transparent that WUWT and associated activities surrounding climate change activism receives.

Alan Wilkinson

Sachs also advises the UN Sec Gen Ban Ki-Moon. Drivel spreads.

Ian E

Anyone know who makes Horlicks?
Surely the time must be right to buy shares – how else are these, presumably intelligent (and hence deliberately lying and manipulative of the truth), types like Sachs to ever get to sleep?

Doug in Dunedin

Anthony
And another thing. CAGW has missed the boat as a scam. The Wall Street and the City of London scam beat them to it. They have together wrecked the economies of the Anglo-sphere as well as that of Europe. All these economies are literally stuffed. There isn’t any money to pay for the nonsense of Carbon credits.
Doug

Tom

We have libel laws in this country for a reason. I haven’t read the article (possibly mistaking this forum for Slashdot 🙂 but if the slights are nearly as misplaced as it sounds, you could and should bring suit against him.

phlogiston

Perhaps take some legal advice – are there grounds for a libel case? I’m not sure they do “class actions” in the UK, so he probably thinks he’s safe.

UK Sceptic

Andrew W -” While I agree that the ‘money from big oil’ meme is nonsense, so is the ’scientists exaggerate AGW to get grants’ meme, and that’s a claim often made in the comments here.”
It is a claim that bears considerable substance. If lucrative grants were not involved in promoting AGW how would you explain the behaviour of CRU’s Phil Jones? Did his drive to warp climate data arise from a sense of twisted intellectual masochism? Do I need to mention what has been going on with the IPCC scandals? How many government grants to disprove AGW have been made? AGW equates to money. The “science” underpinning the “consensus” is nonsensical so how come billions have been thrown in its direction?

James F. Evans

The response from Sachs is that of a wounded animal or a human who has had his world-view grievously, or fatally falsified.
It is the lashing out in desperation of one who’s faith is threatened.
A discussion of facts and evidence is no good to people of this mind-set.
They know it only ends with the ruin of their ideas.
So a fulisade of invective and ad hominems is all they have left, which translates:
Pay no attention to these people, the facts, and evidence.
This is not the posture of someone truly committed to the empirical scientific method.
It’s a fulisade of rhetoric designed to intimidate rather
than inform.
Sadly, it is not the first time this tactic has been employed and it won’t be the last.
But it is the tactic of die-hards faced with the grim prospect of intellectual oblivion.

Andrew W

While we’re all individuals, there is without doubt many prominent lobbyists who have had an association with the coal industry in arguing against coals burnings link to acid rain or with the tobacco industry arguing against tobaccos link to lung cancer who now argue against AGW. Sachs was probably not referring specifically to you Anthony.

Daniel H

Project Syndicate is a Soros funded operation:
http://whois.net/whois/project-syndicate.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Syndicate
Jeffrey Sachs is a close personal friend of Soros and they’ve spoken together at numerous public events. Search for “Soros and Jeffrey Sachs” on youtube.

YEAH! YOU TELL ‘EM TONY! [snip]

UK Sceptic

PS I caught up with the latest KUSI TV show last night courtesy of Richard North over at EU Referendum.
Class!

TinyCo2

Thank you for expressing your personal pain. From my own experiences I share your bone deep, honest and angry reactions to the tobacco insults. Ironically Al Gore’s own chequered past with the stuff is a more significant connection to tobacco than most sceptics.
However, I’m sorry to correct you but the Guardian article is going to be stunningly surpassed in sliminess by this series from ABC’s Clive Hamilton. I’m so offended by the first article, I can’t post because I run the risk of being almost as abusive as he paints sceptics.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm
Tomorrow we find out who’s behind the cyber-bullying campaign. Grrrrr.
Why can’t the warming community understand that the level of reaction they get is a reflection of the huge number of people who disagree with them. The intensity is a measure of how angry we’re getting.
When global warmers decided that we were all going to have to restructure our lives, why did they never consider that the rest of us might want some rock solid proof? And get very vocal when we didn’t get it. Why do they think that a few insults will change our minds?
What little organisation that can be seen in the sceptic community is based on something warmers probably don’t recognise – earned trust. Sceptics very quickly come to know which sceptic sites to trust and which to merely tolerate. I don’t think I need to tell you which heading your site falls under 🙂

Michael In Sydney

It’s all good.
Desperation has set in, relax and enjoy the spectacle.
Cheers
Michael

Christoph

Director Jeffrey Sachs looks quite the swashbuckling figure in his dark suit and reddish tie with his hair jauntily parted thus so.
Too bad he didn’t have the courage to do a bit of honest research before writing his recycled and baseless attack article. I wonder if he will have the courage to leave a comment on this blog about Anthony Watts’ and his parents’ experiences with tobacco?
I wonder what he’d think of my experiences with that horribly evil drug, my parents’ usage of it, the breathing difficulties as a child, and other things I could relate. I’m a “climate denier” (ridiculous term: Climate exists and it even gets warmer — and cooler — and there are myriad causes for this, of which I am not all-knowing, but at the same time have a clue) so I suppose I must suppress all my personal experiences and encourage people to use the drug which kills more people than any other drug in the world, including alcohol.
Because I’m evil… uh, I mean Professor Sachs comes across as a intellectually lazy and vacuous moron.

Another Ian

Re J.Hansford (01:14:21) : and Anthony
I’ve found that in times like this one should think of the obvious response, and then usually do about the opposite.
This adds varitey and is not an expected response.

lucklucky

“Nobody I know of in the sceptic community denies that the earth has gotten warmer in the past century.”
You don’t know and nobody knows. There is enough missing data to not support that assertion.

At one time, I was rather strident in my advocacy that tobacco be banned. The reason was pretty simple. My Dad, who smoked from age 17 when he joined the army for WWII, died of tobacco induced lung cancer. My mother followed a few years later, also from cancer. She did not smoke, but lived in a home full of it, and I’m one of the many kids who had a smoking father and non-smoking mother and ended up highly allergic to tobacco.
To say I despised tobacco would be to vastly understate the “issue” I have with it. After “exposure” I must do a full shower and eye wash scrub down or the next day I will have bright red eyes and skin rashes. Oh, and I won’t breath very well.
With that said, I’ve since decided that if I’m for personal responsibility and liberty, it can’t be a selective thing. Like “freedom of speech”, you must advocate freedom of speech for the speech you find most reprehensible. Everyone is in favor of freedom of speech for views with which they agree… (A very rough paraphrase of Noam Chomsky). So if I would be free to eat a Whopper or ride a motorcycle or even just skip a vaccine that I think is a bit dodgy, I must also allow that others might want a short stimulated life over a longer more sedate one.
So I’ve reached a point where I must state that I think it is any individual’s right to smoke to death, should they wish to do so (though NOT in the presence of any kids that might not want to involuntarily suffer from it as I did for years…)
But the notion that someone like me is connected to tobacco companies in any way at all is so incredibly LUNATIC as to be worthy of the phrase “Bald Faced Lie”.
Oh, and I’m still looking for that paycheck from Big Oil (or anyone for that matter…). The “gravy train” is all on the AGW side, with billions. I’m doing my work on recycled 20 year old PC’s (though one is now only 10 years old and I’ve been offered a Mac G3 that I’m really looking forward to having.)
So here I am in “beggars making mulligan stew” land being accused of rich funding from powerful oil companies! Just nuts. (BTW, oil companies have been members of AGW promoting agencies and have spent lots of money on CO2 “sequestration”. They want and NEED CO2 sequestration to maximize profits. It is one of the best “strippers” for old oil wells. So just check out where they are spending their money. It is on the AGW side…)
So yeah, “Slimed” is just about right.
Lets see. On “their side” we have Soros with Billions plus more Billions from NSF and other government agencies (not to mention folks blogging while at work at government jobs…). On my side I’ve got an old x486 box from the garage that was upgraded to a 400 mHz AMD chip and the recent addition of a $75 recycled PC from Weird Stuff recyclers ( Pentium III with 250 MB memory and Windows Pro 2000) in a self funded operation and running free software. All done in my living room in my ‘spare time’.
Yeah, that’s sure a level playing field /sarcoff>

Erik in Cairo

Chris Thorne (00:55:08) : “Sachs was part of the cadre of ivory-tower Western academic economists who in the 1990s advised the government of Russia […]”
I think that he was more than that. He was the central figure both in Poland and Russia. I was a grad student in Poland at the time Sachs’ ‘shock therapy’ scheme was implemented. I will admit that — at least, at the time — I thought that it was the right thing to do. Even in retrospect, it’s hard to imagine a better way to fix the systemic problems which existed at that time in Eastern Europe.
On the other hand, there is no question that the details of the plan could have been managed much better. For example, my landlord, who, the year before, had spent hours haggling over my rent (which ended up less than a hundred dollars per month), was able to steal a manufacturing plant that must be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, today.
What I am saying is that Sachs is a well-respected authority when it comes to the practical implementation of macroeconomic system-wide transformations. From this article, it sounds like he’s a bit like Noam Chomsky, i.e. an unquestioned international expert in his field, but a bit of of a dilettante in other fields.

Richard

The Guardian newspaper is basically bankrupt, financially, and kept afloat in its Green journalism by AutoTrader, a second hand car magazine. So, Monbiot works for AutoTrader!

D. King

What a sad little man.
Here comes “Big Coal” to get you.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/no_legal_option.pdf

Another Ian

Andrew30 (00:23:42) :
Don’t be too hard on Sci. Am.
Find a copy of Gale. N.H. and Stos-Gale, Z. (1981) Lead and silver in the ancient Aegean Sci. Amer. June 1981 pp142-152
and have a look at the photo on page 143 – and that shows the best cleavage I’ve ever seen in a scientific article.

Franks

On the day this article was printed, here in the Home Counties around London and East Anglia we are currently having a blast of global warming, it is snowing this morning and currently 2 – 3″ deep at the moment. As with Copenhagen I think that the Earth Goddess Gaia is just playing one of her little jokes.
Seriously though, I wonder if the main point of the article is just to generate interest for a a new book. After a general introduction he slips in a paragraph about a forthcoming book “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway.
Many of the readers will fervently agree with his views in the article so this book of course will be of interest to them.

Anthony, I am reminded of an observation by Lewis Carroll:
‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe,’
But lo! The science is not settled …
‘One ,two! One two!And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.’
Keep on galumphing, Anthony, you’re getting results!

Vincent

Anthony,
If you contact the Guardian, maybe you can get a right to reply. All newspapers publish provocative opinions, separate from their own editorials. In this case, they have definately crossed the line. A well thought out reply, especially one from somebody like yourself, who can show how ludicrous and offensive such assertions are, would quickly disabuse any readers of any such ideas.
If they don’t allow you to publish a reply, then they will be damning themselves.

Dan

That article reads like an attempt to placate a readership composed of pretentious pseudo-intellectuals who believe that man=bad.

wayne

Anthony,
The public are not dumb, they know very well what is going on and the vast majority are kind and your integrity is what draws them.
————————————————————–
Thanks again for WUWT.
Send your friends. Enlighten. An excess of knowledge will never harm an open mind.