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


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

General Inquiries

Judy Jamal

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

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

Kyu-Young Lee

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

Kim Martineau

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

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 22, 2010 12:23 am

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
February 22, 2010 12:26 am

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

February 22, 2010 12:26 am

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
February 22, 2010 12:28 am

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.

Roger Carr
February 22, 2010 12:31 am

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)
February 22, 2010 12:34 am

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
February 22, 2010 12:37 am

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
February 22, 2010 12:44 am

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.

February 22, 2010 12:51 am

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:

Andy Scrase
February 22, 2010 12:52 am

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
February 22, 2010 12:53 am

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
February 22, 2010 12:55 am

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.

February 22, 2010 12:55 am

As a frequent comment poster here at WUWT and the author of 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
February 22, 2010 12:55 am

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.

February 22, 2010 12:55 am

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
February 22, 2010 12:56 am

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.

February 22, 2010 1:00 am

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.

February 22, 2010 1:02 am

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
February 22, 2010 1:03 am

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
February 22, 2010 1:05 am

Sachs is not much good at economics either.
(And yes, “flack” is not a typo 🙂

UK Sceptic
February 22, 2010 1:07 am

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

February 22, 2010 1:14 am

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:-)

February 22, 2010 1:16 am

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.

February 22, 2010 1:16 am

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
February 22, 2010 1:17 am

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

Ian E
February 22, 2010 1:19 am

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
February 22, 2010 1:20 am

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.

February 22, 2010 1:21 am

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.

February 22, 2010 1:21 am

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
February 22, 2010 1:21 am

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
February 22, 2010 1:22 am

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
February 22, 2010 1:22 am

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
February 22, 2010 1:23 am

Project Syndicate is a Soros funded operation:
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.

February 22, 2010 1:25 am


UK Sceptic
February 22, 2010 1:26 am

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

February 22, 2010 1:26 am

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.
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
February 22, 2010 1:26 am

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

February 22, 2010 1:26 am

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
February 22, 2010 1:31 am

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.

February 22, 2010 1:31 am

“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.

February 22, 2010 1:33 am

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
February 22, 2010 1:36 am

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.

February 22, 2010 1:36 am

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
February 22, 2010 1:38 am

What a sad little man.
Here comes “Big Coal” to get you.

Another Ian
February 22, 2010 1:38 am

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.

February 22, 2010 1:45 am

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.

Beth Cooper
February 22, 2010 1:46 am

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!

February 22, 2010 1:47 am

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.

February 22, 2010 1:49 am

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

February 22, 2010 1:51 am

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.

Andy Scrase
February 22, 2010 1:51 am

@ Paul Dennis (00:37:09) :
Thank you Paul. We appreciate your honesty and scientific integrity as someone coming from the CRU.
We thank you for your openness and hope to build a more open and transparent scientific process to help us all understand the real problems our planet faces, independent of political agendas.
Andy Scrase

February 22, 2010 1:52 am

Interestingly I note from the list of sponsors for Project Syndicate’s “From Kyoto to Copenhagen” conference last year included:
Shell and
Dong Energy
– As well as various “green” companies – an obvious conflict of interest judging by Sach’s standards.
See this link:
The one person at work who is a moon landing denier is the strongest vocal supporter of CAGW in our organisation. This proves nothing of course (except that we hired an idiot) but it shows how childish Sach’s article is and how lacking in academic rigour. IMO this sort of article only turns people off. It insults over 50% of the population which only hardens resolve. I doubt it turns any skeptics into CAGW believers and I would think the tone would raise alarm bells amongst many fence sitters.

February 22, 2010 1:52 am

I just posted this on teh Guarniad website:
When I began weighing the aruments of the two bitterly opposed sides in this Great Debate, I was determined to (a) dig for the source data behind the various hypotheses and attempt to confirm/refute the claims and (b) observe the psychology of the two sides as revealed by dispassionate presentation of evidence or by shrill appeals to emotion.
After long thought I conclude that:
(i) From the available data, sea level rises, variations in icecap area and temperature fluctuations in recent decades are each within the range of known historical variation.
(ii) The sceptics’ arguments are increasingly dependent on data, and the warmists’ arguments increasingly dependent on personal attacks.
(iii) The two datasets I most trust are the CO2 PPM readings from Mauna Loa and the temperature data from the University of Alabama at Huntsville, both real-time rather than historical.
(iv) The two camps are agreeing on the validity of current data, and so the accuracy of IPCC temperature forecasts is there for all to observe.
(v) Divergence between IPCC forecasts and actual data is large, and has been growing. If actual temperatures rise fast in the next few years, the IPCC case may still survive. If the divergence continues to rise, the IPCC’s credibility will be destroyed and it will need to be disbanded.
Unlike in politics and religion, scepticism in science is healthy. This Guardian article reads like the words of a politician or theologian; if its author has any qualifications in science he should be stripped of them. If he has none, he has no business occupying the position of Director of the Earth Institute.
(PS: for non-British readers, the “Guarniad” spelling is a British in-joke, referring to its reputation for errorrs/erorrs, oh, dammit, mistakes!)

David Mayhew
February 22, 2010 1:54 am

According to my understanding, Jeffrey D. Sachs lacks sufficient background to understand the scientific issues. This disqualifies him as an authority. Obviously, what was written and the way it was written is beyond the pale, even for the Guardian. Like some other respondents, I take this personal public attack on you as a sign of desperation, preceding the imminent implosion of the “case”.
The media playing field has changed, the Internet/blogsphere is more important than the Guardian. With the correct attention on your part to the facts of the issues and the evidence, someone like Sachs becomes irrelevant.

February 22, 2010 1:55 am

The fact that Sachs even had to write this push piece is cause for celebration. The Alarmists had planned to be popping corks right about now as the COP15 treaty was getting US Senate ratification and Obama was signing the Cap’n Trade laws.
They did not plan to be watching their shibboleths fall and the science get so “unsettled”.

Baa Humbug
February 22, 2010 1:57 am

I have evidence that Jeffery Sachs takes money from Mexican druglords. Do you know where my evidence is? It’s in the exact same place as his evidence that people like Watts takes tobacco money. So when Sachs retrieves his evidence, he can get mine too.
I also have evidence for a multitude of unsavoury things that Sachs does, but I’m afraid I’ll get snipped, needless to say these acts would leave Clinton Woods and Gary Glitter red faced. That evidence is also at the same location.
Go get that evidence Sachs and good luck. (moron)

February 22, 2010 1:59 am

“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.”
With all due respect, sir . . . and as an ex-smoker who once had a two and one-half pack-a-day habit, let me suggest that you look at the myth of second-hand smoke with the same skepticism that you display for things AGW.
You may not like the smell of cigarette smoke, but there is no empirical evidence that it kills or causes disease. In all the world, there is no death certificate that reads “second-hand smoke.”

February 22, 2010 1:59 am

Columbia eh? Every time I hear about someone from that place (Obama, Ayers, etc) I wonder why we don’t just deport the lot of them.

February 22, 2010 2:01 am

I have been an avid reader of your blog since the very early days Antony and it has kept me sane. Many, many thanks.
I recently read a quote from Mohandas Ghandi – ‘First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.’
I feel that the stupidity we are seeing at the moment demonstrates that we are definitely at stage 3 of his maxim…

David, UK
February 22, 2010 2:03 am

AGW is about as authentic as that hairpiece on Jeffrey D. Sachs’ head.

February 22, 2010 2:08 am

AndrewW:”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.”
There probably are Andrew, except they’d be a fine old age by now. The coal contraversy took place in the fifies and was well and truly won by the end of that decade. The tobacco issues started in the sixties and were over before the end of that decade.
In fact what Sachs, was trying to do, and it is a constant meme with the non-scientific CAGW proponents, like the use of the work “denier” meant clearly to associate those who oppose CAGW theory with holocaust deniers, was to label all sceptics as the nutters that opposed the fact that coal caused acid rain (easy to prove, SO2 mixes with H2O) and the tobacco lobby. When passions are aroused, to the extent that they are among alarmist, debated is replaced by hatred. Route 101 for hatred is to first demonise, then dehumanise your opponents. Their subsequent executions are then easy for the populace to swallow.
I commented on the post to the effect that I thought it was unworthy of the Guardian to publish an article that could easily be seen as an encitement to violence. The Guardian has the best comments section on the net, but it’s editorial policy has moved a million miles from their founders “Facts are sacred” policy.
He won’t contact you Anthony, it’s a classic scenario in propoganda, tell your lie then move on and refuse to debate it. Where’ve I seen that before?

Baa Humbug
February 22, 2010 2:10 am

By the way, others must also have noticed a sudden common theme running amongst the alarmists. From the Aussie Climate Change Minister to this Sachs fool and others all mentioning tobacco all of a sudden along with CC it’s worse than we thought.
Might they have been tele-conferencing or some other way co-ordinating this recent rise in attacks on skeptics?
I’d be interested in a summary of the recent comments by these alarmists and their common theme. But ofcourse if I were to mention the conspiracy word…….

old construction worker
February 22, 2010 2:10 am

Daniel H (01:23:13) :
‘Project Syndicate is a Soros funded operation.
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.’
Big Al, Soro, and the UN must have their CO2 Cap and Trade or less.
(and they know they are losing that battle)

February 22, 2010 2:14 am

Your repugnance for Sachs slimy diatribe is shared by many, me included. A short time ago, I occasionally wrote a short response to the sillier Guardian warmist articles, but was usually removed by a moderator for unacceptable comments – depsite never using coarse language or Old English, as many of the warmist responders to Guardian articles do, or using ad hominem statements.
I check these articles most days but can no longer see the point of attempting to reason with idiots suffering from religious mania.
As to tobacco, I was bought up in a teetotal and non-smoking household; consequently, when I entered the world of work, I began smoking and drinking, thoroughly enjoying both to excess for many years. However, I have been a non-smoker for a number of years, drink alcohol very moderately so I guess wisdom does eventually come to most of us.
As to the likes of Prof Sachs, a short spell on the staff of a university many years ago dispelled my somewhat idealistic notions of university academics or scientists operating on a purer ethical plane than the average man in the street.
I read Sachs’ article in the Guardian and was disgusted that a newspaper that uses the slogan ‘Comment is free but truth is sacred’ should print such contentless venom.

Peter Plail
February 22, 2010 2:14 am

Even more depressing is the quality of comment on the Guardians – the unthinking, uncritical cheering from the sidelines and the continued repetition of the “d” word.
Some months back I had a lengthy exchange with a rabid AGW supporter on his blog – at the end of the discussion he said that despite the logic and facts of my position, nothing would change his mind. Now if that isn’t denialism I don’t know what is.

Roger Carr
February 22, 2010 2:15 am

Perhaps leave nicotine out of this?
I have smoked for over half a century and intend to continue to do so — at the same time I am glass a year drinker of alcohol and despise it for the harm it does to humanity.
So, please don’t show me yours and I’ll not show you mine?
( E.M.Smith (01:33:37) is herewith endorsed.)

Alan the Brit
February 22, 2010 2:15 am

Ricardo, Nil carborundum illigitimi? Should that not have “sub” at the end? That would lend the “”down” part of your quote, & a very nice quote it is too!! Experts in Latin will comment further I dare say.
I am amazed that someone of such junior years has been employed in such an eminent position, as it seemed to me these were the rantings of a youthfull revolutionary anti-free-market Marxist Socialist, by his very words! He has the look of “I’m all right Jack, but you will have to pay” smugness about his demeanour.
I think smoking is a pretty horrible thing, yet I used to smoke the occasional cigarrette/cigar & pipe before keeping fit put it to the sword. I think people who wish to smoke should do so, they have rights too, but as John Brignall has shown at Number Watch, the second-hand smoking lobby had powerful backers & were not averse to distorting (& then some) the “science” for their own objectives! Yet again we see people who believe that lying is ok for their cause, the truth can go hang as long as we win in the end!
Keep up the good work Mr Watts et al, we need you all!

February 22, 2010 2:17 am

I was so furious about this article, coupled with the absurd Michael Mann interview (swift-boating), and Josh Garman (Guardian Feb 15th 2010), that i wrote an article for a UK mag who are publishing a Climategate/temperature piece of mine this week (I’ll link when it’s up), but I fear my anger shone through and the editor didn’t reply.
I listed climateaudit, wattsupwiththat, The Air Vent, Bishop Hill, Jo Nova, pielkes Sr and Jr, Chiefio, among others and wondered how well-marshalled and well-funded they were.

February 22, 2010 2:21 am

Sorry to go on at length, but I should have included in my previous post that no-one I know in the UK and no-one I correspond with in New Zealand or Australia believes the CAGW story, but acknowledge that the climate appears to warmed and cooled around some sort of mean temperature that has allowed the natural world as we know it to evolve.
As a retired educator, I am very concerned about the sheer amount of warmist propaganda that has been written into school curricula across the Western world, which is a whole other story!

Cold Englishman
February 22, 2010 2:22 am

I have said this before on your blog Anthony.
Ad hominem attacks are a sign that you are winning – it is all they have.
And I also repeat “Do not associate with or do interviews with anyone from the BBC”. I watched “Country File” last night with John Craven chatting to kids in school with their nice new windmill. I came away with the impression that the school windmill, about 25 feet high with 3 foot span, was able to provide all the school’s energy, and with the left overs they would provide plenty for the village too. The way he was feeding questions to the kids was shameless.
After watching more greeneie nonsence about artisans making coffins from willow wands, thus bringing work back to the countryside – really I’m not making this up…………
Just imagine what they could do with an interview with you.

February 22, 2010 2:24 am

As of now the total of responses on the Grauniad site is almost 1000 and an eyeball scan suggests overwhelmingly opposed to Sachs so it might get through.
Remember that the paper is totally dependent on public sector advertising for its survival and is the house journal for mental masturbators.

February 22, 2010 2:28 am

Giving credence to an economist’s thoughts on climate is like giving credence to an editorial cartoonist’s thoughts on quantum mechanics.
“Slimed” *was* the right word.

February 22, 2010 2:29 am

Well said Anthony.
Autonomous Mind wrote a rather enlightened piece on the same article here:

Tom P
February 22, 2010 2:33 am

UK Sceptic (01:21:37) :
“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?”
Roy Spencer has just posted an analysis of satellite data that is in very good agreement with HadCRUT:
His conclusions:
“I’ll have to admit I was a little astounded at the agreement between Jones’ and my analyses, especially since I chose a rather ad-hoc method of data screening that was not optimized in any way. Note that the linear temperature trends are essentially identical; the correlation between the monthly anomalies is 0.91.”
Either Spencer is right and there is no evidence that Phil Jones has been warping the data, or Spencer is warping the data as well. Which do you think?

February 22, 2010 2:36 am

Yes the Phony report only proves to even the most average reader that the ones that clutch to the IPCC line are aligned with the proposals at Cop15, When the third world decreed that they viewed the “Agreement as suicide and a incineration of their countries” most people would have taken the sincerity expressed as sign that all is not as it appears on global Warming!.. I have heard that a-lot of green peace activists where happy until they where not wanted as the leaders arrived in Cop15!. Once they where caught up in some extreme poilic violence They realized that it was all a big show!.

February 22, 2010 2:36 am

Jeffrey Sachs’ monthly Enviromarxism column was THE reason we cancelled our subscription to Scientific American a few years ago.
One column in particular infuriated me… He essentially demanded that the Wall Street Journal Op/Ed page be muzzled. Sachs’ little hissy fit went over very well at Real Climate Dot Org.
Sachs is not a scientist. The Columbia Earth Institute is not a science program. It another one of those pseudoscience touchy-feely interdisciplinary programs in which liberal arts majors are indoctrinated in enviromarxist policies and taught to use scientific-sounding sound bytes. It’s almost as bad as John Holdren’s Energy and Resources Group at Berkeley.
Columbia’s LDEO is one of the premiere geosciences schools in the world… Yet Columbia also sponsors two of the worst purveyors of junk science: Sachs’ group and GISS.

February 22, 2010 2:37 am

The Guardian just don’t get it. Their latest offering, entitled “Do climate change sceptics give scepticism a bad name?”, is from a psychologist. “His interests include the psychology of communicating climate change”?!
Will every area of scientific enquiry bring itself into disrepute defending the indefensible?

February 22, 2010 2:40 am

wayne (01:51:50) : mods, could you rule between my paragraphs. The last one concerned WUWT, not Anthony.

Green Sand
February 22, 2010 2:44 am

I would like to thank Jeffrey D. Sachs – Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University and the Guardian for publishing the article which has given my sceptical resolve a great boost.
I am in your debt Jeffrey. Please keep up the good work. Sticks and stones ……

February 22, 2010 2:44 am

I saw the Guardian article.
What I did notice was the consistent comments like:

Again with the ‘deniers’. When are the proponants of AGW going to realise that insulting people you disagree with is never going to make them ‘warm’ to your arguement.
This piece is made up almost in it’s entirety of ad hominum attacks, appeals to authority and insults

At the time I saw the article I think it was 30%-50% of that kind of comment, effectively saying: “please stop this rubbish”.
And pretty much every Guardian article I have seen for the last six months has had a strong – often majority – comment kickback against the nastiness.
It’s sad. I used to think of The Guardian</i< as a great newspaper. But they've given it away for "the cause".
Understanding complex scientific arguments – like climate – is usually a challenge.
If you want to make sure no one buys into your arguments just insult them first. Guaranteed result! Well done,
The Guardian!

February 22, 2010 2:46 am

I wouldn’t worry about it – it reads like a conspiracy theorists rant because it is one, and it will just put people off believing him on anything else. Similarly the chief scientist on that BBC Newsnight ‘demonstration of the science’ who hinted at the special resources and dark operations required to get the CRU emails…

Louis Hissink
February 22, 2010 2:47 am

The people we are dealing with had their origins last century with the Fabian Society, and in order to understand them now, you need to understand their history –
This is the start of a rather nasty “Empire Strikes Back” battle after the IPCC suffered serious damage (a little like the destruction of the first death star in Starwars) with the various “Gates” etc.
These people are the ebola virus equivalent of humanity, they are dangerous and will stop at nothing to win this one. They have the resources of the state behind them, and that should make you very very fearful.
Do not play their game of faulting the science – it’s the tool they using for something far more sinister as Willie Soon and Lord Monckton of Brencley discovered.

Daniel H
February 22, 2010 2:50 am

We need an update to the glossary section of WUWT. This is the second or third reference I’ve seen to CAGW and I have no idea what it means except for the AGW part (assuming CAGW is a more qualified type of AGW). According to Google it could mean one of the following things:
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming
Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming
Citizens Against Government Waste
Cultural Alliance of Greater Washington
There are probably others. I just gleaned those from the first page of my Google search results. So now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

Louis Hissink
February 22, 2010 2:51 am

Richard (01:36:38) :
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!
Good grief, so are it’s “comradely” sisters in Australia, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, to name two of the greener shades of journalism here.

February 22, 2010 2:58 am

“Recycled critics”
AGW sceptics also have been found to side with critics of DDT-ban, acid rain theory, swine flu vaccination, earth being the centre of the universe, … go figure.
Regarding the ozone hole. Wasn’t it supposed to continue to widen until 2030?

February 22, 2010 2:58 am

it is interesing to note how vigorously enablers like North, Sachs and possibly Boulton now step forward and take the driver seats, which have become vacant after so many activist scientist foot soldiers have been discredited.
they surely try to rescue their agendas by any ugly means, however their mission is risky and they know.

February 22, 2010 2:59 am

If there is any consolation: These articles appeal to the core AGW/greenie constituency, but actually undermine support for AGW from the general public – even including some Guardian readers.
You might want to consider complaining to the Press Complaints Comission ( ) which is the UK newspapers self-regulation body. They will may say it is an opinion column, and therefore not hold it to as high standards as news columns, but it could be worth a try. (see the report about the ruling on the article on Stephen Gateley on the pcc site, where there were thousands of complaints about an article that was considered offensive)

February 22, 2010 2:59 am

Mr. Anthony Watts, thank you for all you have done in the effort to find truth in CC…you deserve a real Nobel Prize! Your Honor has been slimed by not only the Guardian & the too Sachs but a huge Bureaucratic Beast, i.e., USDOE, NASA, Obama, Gordon Brown, Kevin Rudd, UN IPCC and all the shadow entities of the mighty George Soros via his Project Syndicate with it’s membership of 440 leading newspapers in 150 countries….please don’t let them get away with the defamation of your character, FIGHT BACK, the British anbt-defamation laws work for the Saudis, they should work for you. We supporters have your back and we will support your efforts. The Battle for Science has been joined….thanks to Brave men such as you, we will not be denied the truth!

February 22, 2010 3:00 am

This is nothing new. Whenever I post my opinions on AGW elsewhere, there’s usually some twonk who pipes up with an association fallacy:
Source A makes claim P.
Group B also make claim P.
Therefore, source A is a member of group B.
I’m usually told I must be a creationist; tabacco causing cancer denial is second on the list. The fact that I think tabacco does cause cancer and that I’ve got a library full of Richard Dawkins material is irrelevant! But anyway, if this is the extent of the warmists PR fightback, I don’t think we’ve really got a whole lot to worry about.

Philip Thomas
February 22, 2010 3:05 am

The guy has a slimy man wig as well.

February 22, 2010 3:06 am

WUWT should not in anyway associate itself with an organisation that censors as the norm skeptical views on climate change.
Indeed I would go further I suggest a BlackRoll should be setup on WUWT to highlight those blogs that regularily censor views on climate change.

February 22, 2010 3:08 am

Anthony – do NOT let this man get under your skin.
Keep your cool.
Continue with your program of factual information.
We are behind you.
(he’s obviously rattled or in cloud cookoo land).

Mari Warcwm
February 22, 2010 3:08 am

Never trust The Guardian. Ghastly people. They have no interest in the truth and they are not on the side of ordinary taxpayers. They are happy for the state to waste billions on non existent problems without asking any questions. My sister in law reads it. I can’t stand her.
I have just been watching the KUSI programmes. Great! And there was Anthony Watts, a face at last putting in an excellent performance. Good men with the welfare of ordinary people at heart attacking corruption. Unlike The Guardian.
Let’s hope that every state in the US sues against these warming taxes. Now wouldn’t that be a great show.

February 22, 2010 3:13 am

I’m a retired PhD in Psychology, specializing in Human Behavior.
I am a skeptic, but try to stand back and observe the behavior of both camps, after all this is what I do best. But first, I am so sorry of your personal losses due to tobacco.
Here are some observations.
Prior to November 17, the skeptics were winning the debate slowly with the use of science with not too many personal attacks on the AGW camp. Since November, the skeptics had a great moral boost with the revelation that the science was indeed corrupt and that resulted in an increase in the taunts directed at the alarmists.
When the scam got started the perpetrators never envisaged the internet and the communications between bloggers would be a threat. In fact it, the internet, is comparable to a termites nest. Collective intelligence, a few alone is nothing, but several million create an intelligence that can “do” and “create”.
A corrupt collection of people with the same aim will destroy themselves from within. Remember, there is no honor among thieves. There will be more and more scientists break ranks and betray their colleagues. Imagine what the rest of the “Team” are thinking now that Phil Jones did that “guarded” interview with the BBC.
In my view, it would be prudent to make a few well calculated steps into the future to completely dismantle this scam, and it won’t be easy. These steps, as I see it, are:-
Let the lawyers take up the fight directly to the perpetrators. They too like the smell of money and will battle hard and long given the right ammunition.
The bloggers with the special expertise, like you Anthony, and Steve McIntyre and all the others with the special skills, keep doing what they do best in dismantling the shonky science.
The other bloggers can then get too again and feed all the other snippets if information back to the blog sites for the experts to work on.
Keep personal attacks to a minimum and say very little. Let the scammers destroy themselves. It must happen.
BTW. I admire your work Anthony !

Mari Warcwm
February 22, 2010 3:14 am

I agree with AWatcher, but I wouldn’t bother complaining, Anthony. You have much more important things to do with your time. On to the next triumph dear.

February 22, 2010 3:16 am

I don’t know what you people are worried about. The comments section seems to be 99% against Sachs. More silly articles like Sachs simply make it worse for them let them go on doing it! A classic is Monbiot again one of the skeptics best friends LOL

February 22, 2010 3:22 am

Jeffrey Sachs’ piece is prima facie evidence of the corruption, misinformation and propaganda coming from the alarmists. We can see it as propaganda, of course, but the Guardianistas are supposed not to. Change a few words and it could well have been written under the Third Reich. One has come to expect this sort of thing from Monbiot & co. in the Guardian stable. But, hey, this guy is not a scientist – he is an economist. The fact that he says “What is amazing is that, although these attacks on science have been wrong for 30 years, they still sow doubts about established facts” shows that he hasn’t a clue about what’s been going on.
Sachs is in bed with Pachauri and the IPCC. Pachauri is Chairman of the Earth Institute’s ‘International Research Institute for Climate and Society’, and Sachs is on the board of that as well. They have to talk this garbage to keep the money rolling in.
Sachs also wrote the foreword to Gavin Schmidt’s piece of blatant propaganda, see here
Sachs described the book as “a tour de force of public education”
Sachs also wrote the foreword to the paper (reviewed by Gavin Schmidt) ‘The Psychology of Climate Change Communication’, which says
“When communicators craft their climate change messages, they should remember
that framing requires the careful selection of words that will resonate with the audience’s orientations”
“When talking about climate change, communicators should frame their messages to
match what they think the audience may already relate to and worry about in terms of national security. For instance, when speaking to people in the military, communicators could highlight the connections between climate change and potential conflicts over natural resources, especially by so-called “failed states,”
a term often used to describe a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government. When speaking with a group of parents, communicators might want to describe what the world could be like when their children are adults—when issues like water wars, food shortages, and sheltering environmental refugees may become realities for people in the US.”
“The most effective communication targets both processing systems of the human brain. Communicators should make use of the following experiential tools in addition to the more common analytical ones when creating presentations on climate change:
• Vivid imagery, in the form of film footage, metaphors, personal accounts, real-world analogies, and concrete comparisons;
• Messages designed to create, recall, and highlight relevant personal experience and to elicit an emotional response.”
So, it’s all par for the course for the alarmists.

UK Sceptic
February 22, 2010 3:22 am

Tom P – from what I understand of the satellite data used by Phil Jones it was highly selective. Pretty much like the surface temperature data was. I am of the opinion that at the root of every great lie there is a grain of truth to give the lie substance.

February 22, 2010 3:26 am

There’s a certain satisfaction in seeing those who proclaim
to be your opposition reduced to thrashing with strawmen in
the mud.
The anarchist in me enjoys it when any defender of
consensus and conformity has to shout shrill insults
to make a statement that gets any attention at all.
The modern individual tends to shy away from opinion
leaders who appear to have become openly irrational.
J.D. Sachs has gone one toke over the line. Then again,
playing in mud can be good therapy for irrational thought
and bring on a cathartic experience.
Anthony, continue providing the stimulus so the dogs of
AGW can salivate and whimper.

February 22, 2010 3:28 am

I became skeptical four years ago, and when I first ventured to express my skepticism I got “slimed” head to toe by a family member who I not only respected but loved. It occurred in public, so I was extremely embarrassed by the whole episode. However it was a good lesson in “standing up for your beliefs.”
As the years have passed I’ve come to realize that some Alarmists use “Global Warming” as a platform for deeper beliefs. They have watched lovely farmland surrounding cities be turned into sprawling sub-developments that are as bad for a human’s need for community as they are for the eco-system. They intuitively feel such development can’t be right, and I tend to agree with them. However they didn’t take their thinking deeper, and instead simply leapt aboard the bandwagon of “Global Warming” because it “sounded right.”
Now that bandwagon is losing wheels, has fallen into a river, and is rafting over a Niagara. I have some pity for the folk aboard it. However the pity is, they never had pity for me four years ago.
As we throw out the bath-water of “Global Warming,” we need to take care not to throw out the baby, which is concern for our environment, both in terms of our natural environment and our social environment.

ken cole
February 22, 2010 3:30 am

Anthony, Please do not worry about the Guardian and Sachs article. The way the weather has behaved in the Northern Hemisphere ths winter we will all be worrying about Global Freezing before too long.
I am old enough to remember the late Sixties and Seventies when the general concensus among the scientific fraternity was that the world was heading to another Ice Age. Perhaps they got their calculations right!

February 22, 2010 3:30 am

When debate degenerates to ‘ad hominem attacks’ you’ve won your argument. This is the last resort of the desperate who have run out of worthy ideas.

Lindsay H
February 22, 2010 3:32 am

theres nothing worse than being damned with faint praise.
the Guardian knows damn well that the article is a political diatribe. The fact that they publish it in the face of mounting criticism of the whole Climate Science IPCC Industrial complex with powerfull interests in keeping the Government money flowing, simply tells us that the Guardian is being true to its ideological lines as a mouthpiece for the Labor Government and the Left/Greens.
Never the less they will be monitoring the comments, as will the ABC with their similar puff piece and the comments clearly show a huge shift in attitudes and values towards the sceptical end compared to say a year ago.
Dont be surprised if you see a subtle shift in the agenda from the Left /Green newspapers as they try to keep abreast with public opinion to stay relevant.
The politicians are getting increasingly nervous with elections looming.

UK Sceptic
February 22, 2010 3:34 am

PS Tom P – Phil Jones himself has gone on public record as admitting there has been no significant warming since 1998. It sort of makes a nonsense of all the warm biased figures that have merged from CRU over the last decade or so.

Hoi Polloi
February 22, 2010 3:34 am

High time the “Big Money” allegation was reversed. As with all campaigns receiving the sort of political backing that the “climate change” lobby is receiving, one must ask that age old question “cui bono” and back comes the answer two industries in particular. First is the nuclear industry, which explains just why the European Union are the world’s greatest AGW headbangers, for which two countries dominate the European Union and which two countries have the largest nuclear industries – France and Germany in both cases.
Then in the case of the UK, one should ask why, to the great anger and disgust of so many of its supporters, does the Leadership of the Conservative Party so enthusiastically embrace the AGW campaign and once again back comes that old “Deep Throat” answer – “follow the money”. Then the picture becomes altogether clearer, for the tight knit group of David Cameron and friends who currently control the Party are very, very close to the City of London and get the bulk of their funding from the City and the City stands to hugely benefit from the “climate change” scam in two ways. Firstly, the City will make mega amounts amounts of money from the raising of the hundreds of billions that are going to be required to fund the construction of nuclear and clean coal installations and secondly the City of London is the location for 75% of all the world’s carbon trading desks and 80% of all carbon trading is carried out in the City.
Like I said, just ask that old old question “cui bono” and things make a great deal more sense.

Steve Keohane
February 22, 2010 3:35 am

Tom P (02:33:34):Either Spencer is right and there is no evidence that Phil Jones has been warping the data, or Spencer is warping the data as well. Which do you think?
14 whole years of correlation, I’m sure it confirms your faith.

John Hooper
February 22, 2010 3:35 am

All I can say is “I told you so.” I said if you want to take the moral higher ground, you have to make sacrifices.
But if you get into bed with dogs soon enough you’ll wake up with fleas.
In PR circles the enemy of your enemy isn’t necessarily your friend.

February 22, 2010 3:37 am

Of all the nefarious schemes perpetrated by the Warmers and their ilk, the one most egregious is the methodical adjustment factors exposed in the prior post Fudged Fevers of the Frozen North.
We need to dig up as many of those and hit them over the head with it over and over again.
It is a concept even the most inexperienced layperson can understand–they fudged the numbers down then they fudged them up, and without any substantive reasons. It is easy to see where most “global warming” came from (I call it the “honing of the hockey stick”)
Let people like Sachs become the bottom feeders (“Sucks”?) of climate slimes. In fact, let’s start calling a spade a spade: Such folks are indeed “climate slimes”.
I believe the term is fitting.

February 22, 2010 3:38 am

All this talk of tobacco industry methods is crap indeed. Hey Anthony, I bet you are even greener than Sachs.
No whenever I’m told by Warmers about oil funding or tobacco I copy and past the following:
CUR Funding:
British Petroleum (Oil, LNG)
Central Electricity Generating Board
Eastern Electricity
KFA Germany (Nuclear)
Irish Electricity Supply Board (LNG, Nuclear)
National Power
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (Nuclear)
Shell (Oil, LNG)
Sultanate of Oman (LNG)
UK Nirex Ltd. (Nuclear)
In 2005, Pachauri helped set up set up GloriOil, a Texas firm specialising in technology which allows the last remaining reserves to be extracted from oilfields otherwise at the end of their useful life.

“He is an internationally recognized figure in energy and sustainable development, having served on numerous boards and committees including Director of the Oil and Natural Gas Company of India; Director of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;…
“Our chemical lab in Houston is state of the art, custom built for purpose with one goal in mind – to supply the US oil industry with world class biotechnology to increase oil recovery from mature fields.”
“Our research facility in India focuses primarily on long term R&D projects such as heavy oil degradation, methane biogeneration from coal beds, and other initiatives.”

CRU seeks big oil and big business cash

Steve Keohane
February 22, 2010 3:38 am

Sorry, meant 24 years, same insignificance.

February 22, 2010 3:38 am

smoking over the last 60 years smoking has more than halved (UK 1948 66% of the population, 2009 22.5%) but asthma has risen by 300% (again in the UK). So smoking is not the primary cause of asthma and atopy, I assume the doctor’s cars and industrial pollution. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.
“Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.
The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”
They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”…/…gic_sensitization_.html
This is a Swedish study.
“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”…pubmed/ 11422156

February 22, 2010 3:39 am

Actually despite the Guardian’s typical ignorance acid rain has turned out to be a groundless scare. British acid rain is good for Norway’s trees, says a Norwegian scientific study
In the normal manner of eco-scares the media give the fact that they were untrue not 1.000th as much coverage as the false hype.
In a similar way the paper’s George Moonbat attacked Martin Durkin’s Great Global Warming Swindle on the grounds that Durkin had, unlike him, opposed the breast implants scare, either not knowing or not caring that this scare had also been proven false.
In fact it is virtually impossible to find any eco-scare (or indeed Guardian campaign) which has not subsequently turned out to be wholly or largely untrue.

February 22, 2010 3:40 am

Correction: “No whenever ” should be “Now,/b> whenever “

February 22, 2010 3:42 am

May I join the chorus and say all credit to you Anthony, as we are your witnesses and as is every post on this blog.
As I read these guys there flashes before my eyes the religious controversies of the distant past. They have great empire built upon a dogma, and they are threatened, and now they have no answers. Think of all that you and CA have laid out in the public gaze…and what can he do…address them? No. He attacks his critics as agents of the devil.
That is what he is saying: Tobacco, Big Oil etc are agents of the devil. We are traitors of humanity, selling not only ourselves but all humanity to the devilish fiery destruction.
If this defence does not work (and soon it wont) History tells us that the next step can only be violence. And they cant win with that and so they wont use it. And so, as many have said above, this article is a good sign, a sign of desperation, a sign that this pathetic atribution as agents of the devil is all that they have left.
Its a sign that you are doing something right – so, I encourage you not to be baited by them with their namecalling and keep pushing the science!

February 22, 2010 3:46 am

@ Stacey (01:02:40) : At first I was about to correct you and say “Surely you meant JUNK Science.” Then I remembered Copenhagen and thought “No, she’s right.”
@ Mr Sachs: This is not the way to win friends. Well done, sir – you’ve just shot your cause in the foot. Again.

Martin Ackroyd
February 22, 2010 3:46 am

It’s a religion and its fervent adherents, who were less than polite to those they liked to term “deniers” even before Climategate, can be expected to become more and more strident and nasty as belief in the AGW religion diminishes. This example is only the start of what we can expect.
I think it has coma as a surprise to the Guardian’s editors – and no doubt they are still coming to terms with it – to find that comments against the AGW religion in response to article’s like Sachs’s are:
– articulate and expressed firmly but in moderate language
– numerous, indicating that a good percentage of Guardian readers are not AGW believers
– receiving a larger proportion of “recommend” clicks than AGW commens.
For example, the comment I posted (below) had received 316 “recommend” clicks when I last looked.
“Nil carborundum” , Mr Watts – someone who knows Latin will translate.
Martin A
My comment posted on Sachs article….
The IPCC and its prophets are discredited.
“Climate change science”, as we have seen from the Climatgate emails – read them if you are doubtful – is based on analysis that is tweaked to produce the desired results and data that has been “value added” in ways that emphasise the desired results.
If your experiments (or your analyses) are not repeatable by others, what you are doing is not science. Richard Feynman, the greatest 20th C scientist, after Einstein, gave a talk on what he called “Cargo Cult Science”. There, you do everything that real scientists do except to apply scrupulous honesty in searching out your own errors.
Jones, Mann and co were aware their work was on dodgy ground – hence their refusal to release their data to enable others to attempt to duplicate their work.
If you attempt to prevent others from finding your errors, as “The Team” did, then what you are doing is worse than not being real science – it is anti-science.
What they were doing was generating propaganda for a cause. The cause they had come to believe in was the AGW Religion – not scientific truth.

February 22, 2010 3:47 am

Well, As for the background on the Project Syndicate – it was established by The Soros Foundation. here annual report :

John Wright
February 22, 2010 3:48 am

Let them do their worst, Anthony.

February 22, 2010 3:50 am

When dealing with the science of the left don’t forget they bring their political science playbook with them. Step on of this particular play is the smear by association with a defined “evil’ group then direct smear by linking specific persons to the group. The fact that the article was shopped around is get to step two where it is reported in two or more publications. Then it goes main stream media viral with the introduction of “as reported in”. All aimed at discrediting the messenger then the message.
It’s a damaging blow whenever it’s played. For example, if someone declares you molested a child the charge will be widespread. Regardless of outcome, you will be forever noted in the media as “involved in a child molestation controversy”. It’s like someone telling you that you must prove to them you’re not a racist.
It does show the political left-wing support group(s) are still in business. The debate, if there ever was one, is now moving to the mud-slinging Alinsky phase. As soon as Obama finishes nationalizing health care he may decide to take on the skptics. If so, the debate will become worse than you can imagine.

February 22, 2010 3:52 am

In his article Jeffrey Sach’s writes;
“The second issue was a blatant error concerning glaciers that appeared in a major IPCC report. Here it should be understood that the IPCC issues thousands of pages of text. There are, no doubt, errors in those pages. But errors in the midst of a vast and complex report by the IPCC point to the inevitability of human shortcomings, not to any fundamental flaws in climate science.”
I note that at the top of his article’s web page, there is a link to a news story titled; “Climate scientists retract sea level paper”.
I’m reminded of the proverb; “There are none so blind as those who will not see”.

February 22, 2010 3:54 am

I did respond TinyCo2 (01:26:24), regarding Clive Hamilton’s piece, “Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial”, at ABC Unleashed.
I suspect there are a few nutters out there angry enough to be intimidating in their emails but Clive’s argument would be on more solid ground if he were to give us a rough percentage of how many emails are as intimidating as those he is quoting: is it near 100 per cent; 50 %; 1%?
Also Clive, you cannot just assume that these intimidating responses are part of an orchestrated campaign without supplying evidence. I have no way of knowing but I think that the response of a number of people, who perhaps are fed up of feeling they are being lied to by the authorities (and the ABC) is sufficient for some of them to respond angrily in an intimidating fashion. You can only abuse people’s trust for so long. And before any climate alarmists get on my case bear in mind that those people seeking straight answers to straight questions not only wished to be taken seriously but also not be abused because they resist being obsequious to a supposed authority that is increasingly proving to be disingenuous.
Clive, in 2008 you were quoted as saying, with regard to the notion of anthropogenic climate change, “Well, quite frankly, if you’re not terrified, you’re not listening to what the climate scientists are saying”, after which you added, “I think we’re beyond feeling hopeful, and the only way to get people to take the necessary action is to scare the pants off them.”
This line of thinking comes directly from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research located at the University of East Anglia, home of the CRU email leaks. Mike Hulme, the founding director of the Tyndall Centre, quoted in “The Guardian” newspaper neatly sums up this line of thinking by saying that, “self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking . . . scientists and politicians must trade truth for influence.”
Paul Kelly, editor-at-large of “The Australian” newspaper said in the March 21, 2007 edition that the climate “debate is no longer just about the environment. It is about economics, culture, ideology and foreign policy. The old debate about climate change believers and sceptics is dead (being kept alive only for political gain). The new debate is about policy solutions.”
Readers can draw their own conclusions; my conclusion is that Clive Hamilton, as a professor of Public Ethics, is manipulative and selective in his arguments. If the climate debate is about policy solutions then how about bringing people on board through an open and honest debate rather than through abuse and deceit. After all it is us, we the people, who will be paying for these policies.

Dawn Watson
February 22, 2010 3:58 am

er what’s on this about climate wars? Its only a bloody war on the internet – outside its looking pretty freaky – Warmest November on record followed by freak cold weather down to minus 20 in Glasgow, and parts of the Tyne freezing over. Ah – the end of climate change – I hear you cry – well no actually my Auntie lives in Vancouver and they’ve had the warmest winter on record – no snow at all.
even if climate change wasn’t happening and wasn’t down to GHGs – have you not thought of dwindling fossil fuel reserves?? energy security anyone?
A lot of the low carbon solutions (i.e. energy efficiency) measures should be applauded as they will avoid us having us send our troops to different countries to die just to secure future energy resources. It’s a bit of a no-brainer really. It saddens me that there are so many people out there getting so emotional about CC – when there could be using that energy into making positive change instead of moaning on about being swindled and about ‘stealth taxes’ (I know this as my own father harps on about it having being brainwashed by the daily express (he didn’t do any science at school).
As a country we have some serious energy decisions to make, and embarking on a low carbon future would mean we are more resilient and less dependent on volatile foreign energy sources.
Stop bitching, and think about how we want our future to be, support a large scale refurbishment of existing building stock, it’ll help eradicate fuel poverty, create local jobs and kick start the economy….
Yes – the Govt is misguided in lots of areas. However there are a lot of oil and coal companies with a lot of vested interests and a lot of £££ at stake to keep the status quo – just think on that a little would you?

February 22, 2010 4:00 am

While I understand your anger, it might be wise to bear in mind that no organization is monolithic. The goal of the paper is to sell pulp or hits, so most editors don’t have a great deal of integrity anymore… its business.
That doesn’t neccessarily mean that an individual within the Guardian isn’t interested in being an honest broker though. Castigating potential allies because of their associations seems shortsighted. If you’d said that the author of the article in question was the guy that wrote to you, then that’d be a different story altogether.

Rhys Jaggar
February 22, 2010 4:01 am

Mr Watts
As one of your regular readers and contributors: here’s my take on tobacco.
I worked, from aged 21 to 32, broadly, in Cancer Research. I was funded by the two major UK charities, Cancer Research Campaign and Imperial Cancer Research Fund, which merged to become Cancer Research UK. The last Director General (aka head honcho scientist) of that organisation made his single biggest campaign on the subject of smoking. And it sure as heck wasn’t promoting cigarettes to children in school…….
Here’s my take on oil. Rightly or wrongly, I took the position that the Iraq war was about oil, specifically UK and US interests exploiting Iraqi oil. Those who monitor the online media may just possibly detect that I made some fairly strong statements about that, which were not necessarily complimentary to oil interests……..
Another position I hold on oil. It’s the fuel of today and this century. It may not be the fuel of the next one, but right now, our world is run by it. And I for one wish to exist in heated houses, not a tent. Because I’m not a Berber in North Africa or an Arabian from Medina, I’m a Brit at 50+N degrees latitude…….whose last two winters were colder, not warmer, than the ones before………
Another position I hold on oil. Their funding of other energy sources is considerable. They are interested in wind power, biofuels, tidal energy and solar. Ultimately, they are energy generation companies. They are not brutally anti-‘green’, they are in the business of making money.
The final position I hold. The IPCC has an agenda. It funds research. So it prejudges the outcome of that research.
And the funds in the state sector for global warming far outstrips that of oil interests.
I’d like the Guardian to address THAT little nugget more than anything else.

P Gosselin
February 22, 2010 4:05 am

The more they name-call, whine, complain and moan, the more it means we are getting the upper hand.

February 22, 2010 4:08 am

If there was one thing that was clear in the climategate files, it was that Phil Jones was receiving millions of euros in funding from Big Government like the EU. That’s undeniable fact, yet somehow it is moral to receive money from big government politicians who mostly have an authoritarian agenda, and will use the CAGW scare to their benefit.

February 22, 2010 4:12 am
It would appear the global warming propagandists are in fact part of the anti-smoking lobby too!
This WWF report, it turned out, was co-authored by Andy Rowell, an anti-smoking and food safety campaigner who has worked for WWF and Greenpeace, and contributed pieces to Britain’s two most committed environmentalist newspapers. Rowell and his co-author claimed their findings were based on an article in Nature. But the focus of that piece, it emerges, was not global warming at all but the effects of logging

February 22, 2010 4:12 am

The Project Syndicate, distributing this article, is a George Soros pet project, pushing the internationalist agenda.
Internationalists view global warming as a tool for furthering global integration through the transfer of power from nation states to international institutions.
The “Global strategists” of the Project Syndicate are the following people: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Haass, Sergei Karaganov, and Kenichi Ohmae.
The three first names are affiliated with the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, the latter is author of books such as “A borderless world” and “Next Global Stage: The: Challenges and Opportunities in Our Borderless World”.

February 22, 2010 4:14 am

Skeptics are way down the totem pole. First Sachs has gone after Bush, then mainly Obama, then the developed countries, then…
Well let’s see, Professor Jeffrey Sachs
And you have doubts these guys are going after your family’s food and water besides your energy, think again!
Source: Des Moines Register, Colombia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs, 2009 Borlaug Dialogue

Sachs said agriculture is the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions, and he also linked the industry to depletion of water supplies and fisheries and poor dietary habits.

Seems Sachs is speaking much of carbon credit trading of late. Search and read his other articles, speeches.
Isn’t Columbia just a hop, skip and jump from Wall Street too, besides NASA’s GISS? Now where is the connection? Who is doing what to whom I wonder?

February 22, 2010 4:14 am

Sachs is a trained economist. I always love it when people have an arrogance so high that they feel they can speak loudly on issues when their knowledge is limited. Sachs also recommended free chemical fertilizer to african farmers as a development strategy. He has no knowledge of the best stratgies for soil fertility management on the fragile soils of Africa. As an agricultural scientist with experience working In Africa I can say his fertilizer advice is harmful to development. Similarly he has limited understanding of the climate change issue.

Carbon Dioxide
February 22, 2010 4:20 am

Tony Benn (on an entitely unrelated subject -google him) is famous for stating that “…an empire in decline is at it’s most dangerous.”
He was refering to the British Empre, but in the same way, I also see AGW as an empire in decline.

February 22, 2010 4:23 am

I skimmed through the comments on that article… and was left with a feeling of awe.
If it was MY pet theory, I sure wouldn’t want most of those guys as my vocal supporters.
Oh well… if ignorance is bliss, they seem very happy. Seems to me they should be more upset about the horrid consequences about to befall the planet, but no, they waste their time scoring “points” against anonymous people they disagree with.
By the way, the Ghandi quote is printed in the AGW alarmists guide to manipulating the rubes, they think it applies to them. (hint: it was a guidebook in the FOIA files)

February 22, 2010 4:24 am

All that hot air from Jeffrey Sachs he doesn’t manage to address the actual science and the perfectly valid questions that have been asked of it for years but now the volume has been turned up to eleven so everyone can hear them.
Well, except those with their fingers in their ears and their hands in our pockets.(Quite a trick, that.)

February 22, 2010 4:25 am

Sachs’ essay epitomizes the intellectual inbreeding and academic corruption that thoroughly permeates America’s Ivy League institutions today. Too few of the faculty of the most prestigious institutions have minds of their own; they are instead panderers to intellectual fashion and political correctness. It’s telling that the legitimate critics are disproportinately from outside of academe, and even more disportionately from outside of institutions like Columbia. Dr. Sachs, your superficial analyis would earn an F in any decent undergraduate course.

February 22, 2010 4:31 am

I support you whole heartedly Anthony. I am a climate change skeptic, with family who have suffered the effects of smoking. So I am an ardent anti smoker and to make this link is trawling the gutter. Another tactic they have tried is to paint themselves as victims of cyber bullying and define the debate along political lines. See here.
CAGW proponents are coming under greater scrutiny lately, and to resort to this kind of response rather than present evidence, just reinforces my skepticism. I wonder how many people support CAGW simply because it aligns with their politics, rahter than looking for the evidence?

February 22, 2010 4:31 am

Slightly, OT: Take a look at this article about climategate.
Look at the bottom – you get “Related SourceWatch articles” – include “Philip Morris”
So look over the body, and the only appearance of Morris (actually this time spelled “Phillip Morris” with two Ls) is that American Freedom of Information, including a Shelby Amendment, in 1993 that was allegedly drafted by somebody who once did consultancy for Philip Morris.
There is no actual connection between Philip Morris to the University of East Anglia. Or to Phil Jones. Or to Climategate. Or even to any fact, debate, research or issue relating to climate change. Or anything in the body of the article. But they consider it Philip Morris one of the most relevant links. It’s bizarre.

February 22, 2010 4:33 am

IPCC has a credibility problem. In order to survive longer, they have to change the swinging public perception.
To protect their organization, they have to attack and disable the opposition.
It doesn’t matter what the content is as long as it takes the focus away from the IPCC organization itself.
Notice the content is focused away from the issue? Try to attack where the public is most gullible.
IPCC deniers are also baby killers.
Get my point?

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
February 22, 2010 4:34 am

He’s a troll. You addressed his lack of professionalism very well, Anthony. History will look back upon Sachs as an intolerant, unscholarly man who made his voice most well known to all the adorers of politically correct totalitarianism who read the Guardian and who ended up eating his own words like so many before him and to come.

UK Sceptic
February 22, 2010 4:37 am

Dawn Watson, If you would like to know how effective the low carbon energy alternative is, especially during a cold snap, lobby Glasgow council to allow the city’s energy to flow directly from Whitelee Wind Farm rather than from the high percentage fossil fuel based energy supplied by the national grid. If you succeed in persuading them I’ll warrant we’ll be able to hear the resulting bitching all over the UK.
Yes, we need a secure energy supply but new energy sources do not just pop out of a hat fully formed. Solar panels and windmills are not the answer. At best they provide a minor supplementary input. The only current real alternative to oil and gas is nuclear but due to laziness on the behalf of several governments we are about to see that source dwindle very shortly.

February 22, 2010 4:40 am

A critique of Jeffrey Sachs’s very expensive vanity project Millennium Villages
Key quote: “I don’t, bluntly, think Sachs has been entirely honest in this.”
It would seem that Jeffrey Sachs is not a man who can take criticism.

February 22, 2010 4:40 am

Why do you think that it goes without saying that a business because it sells products or services has to have no integrity?
Anyway because of the Guardians love of everything which is so called green then it should be renamed The Guardener?

Jeff B.
February 22, 2010 4:40 am

Just a coward who’s got to do his part protecting Gavin and Jim.

February 22, 2010 4:43 am

Here is the Soros connection:
S O R O S F O U N D A T I O N S N E T W O R K R E P O R T (2005)

Another form of partnership is also of enormous
importance to the Soros foundations: the relationships
with grantees that have developed into
alliances in pursuing crucial parts of the open
society agenda.
These partners include, but are not limited to:

Project Syndicate for providing diverse commentaries
to over 240 newspapers worldwide;

Sean Peake
February 22, 2010 4:44 am

Anthony, Project Syndicate is a Soros-backed org. Time to put that guy out of business.

February 22, 2010 4:44 am

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levelsStudy claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report’s author now says true estimate is still unknown

February 22, 2010 4:45 am

ken cole (03:30:06)
The Ice Age hipe in the 70’s was due to cooling and science just trying to use the time frames between Ice Ages to calculate when this one is to occur.
All of science missed the boat in actually exploring into the cause and effect to an Ice Age.
Why does Mars not have water and we do?
What protects our water from evaporating away?
Has the next Ice Age started? Yes!
The salt in our oceans have changed dramatically on both being saltier in some areas and much less in others to increase evaporation and cloud cover.

February 22, 2010 4:51 am

You go Anthony. Ditto. Take them down. I’ll be right with you.

R. de Haan
February 22, 2010 4:54 am

Anthony, I have a great respect and admiration for your relentless efforts to build bridges, produce the correct science and promote dialogue.
But there won’t be any honest discussion.
As we concluded many times this is not about science but politics.
Dirty politics!
All that really helps is to continue our path and present the best of the science and inform those open to the truth.
We will really get them when we trigger a political shift which puts us in a position to cut the funding of the institutions promoting the scare, stop the Government propaganda machine, role back the rulings and clean house.
That’s the only way to go.

February 22, 2010 4:56 am

That Jeffrey D. Sachs is the one who, with his leftist and populist economics, has broken down many countries that followed his apocalyptic advices.
This clearly shows that there is quite a well articulated liberal “staff”, in international institutions or near them, ready to advice in “convenient” policies, from fake climate change to suicidal economics.

February 22, 2010 5:00 am

Dawn Watson (03:58:56) :
Stop bitching, and think about how we want our future to be, support a large scale refurbishment of existing building stock, it’ll help eradicate fuel poverty, create local jobs and kick start the economy….
Absolutely astounding.
First, gutting the current system won’t help make the transition. It should be market driven, not policy driven based on “creative science” as I view AGW. When market forces argue for the transition to something else for what you call “fuel poverty”, it should be done in the most logical, efficient procedure possible and in the correct direction. There are many promising technologies on the horizon right now that should be given the chance to mature before making a solid decision. (And no, we’re not just suddenly going to run out of nuclear fuel, coal, oil or gas.)
While your ultimate aim may be noble from your perspective, the economic hardships faced in getting there may be insurmountable.
Let me offer you some perspective as a mining engineer–one who has worked on projects w/ capital outlay of up to $1.5 Billion.
First of all, you must consider whether the technology you’re embracing (wind, solar, no nuclear, no carbon) even makes sense.
Then, if the capital doesn’t exist to make the transition, it won’t happen; it SHOULDN’T happen.
Do you want to think about that for a moment? Just where is all this money going to come from to jump from a system that’s working efficiently right now (and no, I don’t believe CO2 is anywhere near the main driver in “climate change”–if that is the reason for your position then you need to re-think it) to a system that entails untenable, unreliable components as a solution? Are you willing to just do without electricity when the winds don’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine?
Would you personally finance such an approach? No you wouldn’t, and that’s why it’s is taking hair-brained governments to do the pushing. Well, group think on something like this by politicians is laughable. LAUGHABLE!
So dear mad’am, please take your fanciful attitude someplace else and get logical and real. What you’re dreaming up is all fine and dandy if you got a degree in Art History or Socialism, but it doesn’t work very well in the real world.
What you’re advocating could easily bankrupt nations, leaving them incapable to capitalize the very transition you’re so sure they need to make.
There is a far better way.

February 22, 2010 5:02 am

Scipio (03:30:26) :
When debate degenerates to ‘ad hominem attacks’ you’ve won your argument. This is the last resort of the desperate who have run out of worthy ideas.
Bingo! Well said.

February 22, 2010 5:03 am

Don’t worry Anthony, Sachs is a hairdo. He’s just another dismal scientist (economist) whose failures in his own field (transforming economies of former communist east European states) have seen him migrate to join the climate change bandwagon.
When people like Sachs resort to such vacuous nonsense, you know they have lost the argument. But for them the science is still sound, right? Their revenue stream depends on that being so.

February 22, 2010 5:05 am

Wow, that article sounded like a desperate last ditch effort to convince a growing skeptical world. Talk about cirling the wagons!

February 22, 2010 5:10 am

Today’s campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organisations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing “acid rain.” Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too
How fool you are Jeffy!, you are so transparent buddy!, you have just told us, that, instead, YOU and YOUR PEERS, did all that, invented all those tales, from cancer smoking to einstein´s relativity and its multidimensional unexisting and child scaring phantoms!

February 22, 2010 5:11 am

Have you ever cornered a scared animal? These are the most dangerous animals. When an animal is cornered, it cannot run. The flight-or-fight instinct takes over and the animal fights because flight is impossible. A cornered animal is the most dangerous animal.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Except such attack to increase because that is all they have left. These so-called scientists and professors don’t have facts, but they they have juvenile name-calling. They are cornered by the facts, so their only option left is to fight. Their only options are admit defeat and give up the money and power or attack the people exposing them; but we know that ain’t going to happen. People do bad things for money.

Pete H
February 22, 2010 5:14 am

During the Stalingrad campaign there was an Xmas broadcast from the front line saying…”We are Winning” That was a fake as well!
The Guardian is only good for wrapping up fish and chips Anthony! Never mind mate, what does not hurt you makes you stronger.

Baa Humbug
February 22, 2010 5:18 am

Re: Dawn Watson (Feb 22 03:58),

A lot of the low carbon solutions (i.e. energy efficiency) measures should be applauded as they will avoid us having us send our troops to different countries to die just to secure future energy resources. It’s a bit of a no-brainer really. It saddens me that there are so many people out there getting so emotional about CC – when there could be using that energy into making positive change instead of moaning on about being swindled and about ’stealth taxes

Just think a little on this Dawn…….It wasn’t a government mandate that got us off the horses back and on to motor vehicles, it was private enterprise and demand and supply.
And how about thinking about the precedent that would be set if lies, false science and vested interests were allowed to hold sway. What would/could be next?
And how about a little thought about the ends justifying the means? A fine way to run global politics.
How about thinking about the millions dying TODAY, NOW in poor countries, and them being told of imagined problems 50 years hence? Why don’t you convince them that they should worry about AGW or peak oil instead of their kids STARVING TODAY.
Spare me the indignant rants.

February 22, 2010 5:21 am

A long time back I worked with a fellow whose stock response was “Don’t confuse me with facts—my mind is made up”.
Geoff A

Steve Goddard
February 22, 2010 5:24 am

Without all of that horrible oil and gas, Professor Sachs would be starving and freezing to death in the dark. Talk about a clueless, ungrateful malcontent..

Claude Harvey
February 22, 2010 5:27 am

Excellent “rant” Andrew! I love a really good rant and yours is right out there among the best. Every now and then it does the soul good to get it out of your system, doesn’t it? Those who’ve sold their souls to the AGW funding ghouls can never know such cathartic relief. They rant, but something remains stuck inside that can never be disgorged.

February 22, 2010 5:32 am

I like being called a denier and wear the moniker proudly. As people here have pointed out, if we are deniers then the other side must be believers. And since the term believers assumes a trust in something by faith, it clearly shows the AGW religion for what it is.

February 22, 2010 5:33 am

This is the latest concerted effort by the AGW promotion community to silence skeptics.
By the way, it is now a plot by us, according to some AGW promoter I listened to on NPR yesterday, that global warming was turned into ‘climate change’.
And just to prove that AGW promoters are not marketing driven, this same person, during the same interview, told the softball reporter that the new name for global warming is ‘climate crisis’.

February 22, 2010 5:35 am

I pity Naomi Oreskes for her paranoia.

February 22, 2010 5:36 am

Do you think that replacing fuels with windmills and solar cells?
Do you think that imposing a $trillion cure for a non-existent problem is a good thing?
And do you realize that Vancouver exists in no small part because it was a place to access the far north yet had light winters?

February 22, 2010 5:37 am

Dawn said;
“even if climate change wasn’t happening and wasn’t down to GHGs – have you not thought of dwindling fossil fuel reserves?? energy security anyone?”
If you read this blog a little more closely you will see that our host is a enthusiastic user of electric vehicles and shares an interest in renewable energy with many of his readers. I have written an article on wave energy myself.
Why is the weather In Glasgow freaky? Perhaps you would also tell me when Vancouver records began?

February 22, 2010 5:38 am

I put the following response to Sachs’ rhetoric:
Mr Sachs and his readers may be interested to know that, in addition to annual funding from both British and American tax payers, the CRU at UEA have received considerable funds from the following vested interests:
British Petroleum – Oil, LNG
Broom?s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre – Food to Ethanol
The United States Department of Energy – Nuclear
UK Nirex Ltd. – Nuclear
Sultanate of Oman – LNG
Shell Oil, ?Oil – LNG
Tate and Lyle – Food to Ethanol
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate – Nuclear
KFA Germany – Nuclear
World Wildlife Fund – Political Advocates
Greenpeace International – Political Advocates
IPPC AR 4 (2007) has admitted serious errors on the following claims:
Sea-level rises:
Himalayan Glacier retreating rates – Non-science based claim, known by IPCC President to be erroneous and forced (by sceptics) to retract.
Arctic sea-ice melting:
Droughts in Africa will lead to sever food shortages – Non-science based claim, since retracted by IPCC.
Increase in levels of Hurrican severity:
Polar Bears are not in decline or endangered. Brazilian rainforests have been denuded because of logging (now to produce bio-fuels!). Antarctic sea and land ice are expanding. etc, etc, etc

Lady in Red
February 22, 2010 5:42 am

I understand why Anthony is upset.
At the same time, this is sooooooooooo bad! It is hard to believe a grown-up wrote it. It is mush. Nothing more.
If more people affiliated with the University read it, he may not be long to remain….?
The other possibility is that “carbon trading interests…?” held a “gun” to his head: write something; defend the science, or this will be the end of funding dollars for the institute….. So, reluctantly, he did.
I don’t know… I do know the piece is very bad. Seventh grade stuff.
………Lady in Red

Richard Wakefield
February 22, 2010 5:43 am

Anthony, they can’t help themselves. All True Believers of a faith must demonize the opponents. Us atheists have been this for a long time.

A Lovell
February 22, 2010 5:44 am

For a realistic look at passive smoking see ‘dave hitt/facts.

February 22, 2010 5:45 am

P.S. Suggest that all proud sceptics send sensible, science-based counter-arguments to Sachs. HAPPY HUNTING!!

Hoi Polloi
February 22, 2010 5:46 am

“well no actually my Auntie lives in Vancouver and they’ve had the warmest winter on record – no snow at all. ”
Well, your auntie doesn’t know it, but Vancouver has in fact the mildest climate of any Winter Games host city. Vancouver has an average temperature of 4.8 degrees Celsius. Vancouver has an average snowfall of just 48 centimetres and, as most Vancouverites know, it is rare for even that small amount to stay on the ground for more than a couple of days.
So all this is not due to Global Warming, but merely a political choice of choosing a snow arm area to hold the Winter Olympics.
“However there are a lot of oil and coal companies with a lot of vested interests and a lot of £££ at stake to keep the status quo”
Pure out of marketing reasons Oil Companies currently do have a lot of vested interests in AGW and don’t forget the Carbon Credit Exchange market (where Al Bore and Pachauri have big vested interests).

Fred from Canuckistan
February 22, 2010 5:49 am

When a pinheaded coward like Sachs writes such drivel, it really shows that he is gutless, clueless but most of all afraid.
Afraid his carefully constructed lip-lock on the public teat will be terminated and his get rich & famous by flogging fear & hysteria scheme will blow up in his face.
Sachs is just another cheap eco-grifter riding the great AGW ponzi scam to an easy career and a fat bank account.
Getting rich through misrepresentation is a morally reprehensible act . . . . put Sach’s name on the list for the trials to follow.

Herman L
February 22, 2010 5:49 am

no scientific organizations were stepping forward to ask the tough questions
Do you have a list of “the tough questions?” And are they all purely scientific questions? Post them here!

February 22, 2010 5:50 am

The Guardian has closed off comments – total was 1037. I have not read them all – it seemed very slow – but judging from the reactions to and recommendations of the comments Sachs’s piece was seen for exactly what it was – a PR hit piece. I suspect that someone, somewhere is putting two and two together and realizing that more and more people are simply not buying the type of ad hominem arguments that Sachs tried to put forward.
I think the ultimate irony is to have somebody with close ties to Soros pontificate about others who actually have no connections to nefarious behind hte scenes actors and interests. Prof. Sachs should be ashamed of himself.

February 22, 2010 5:51 am

Socialism & AGW: clones. Pyramid schemes. Extortion rackets.
“But sometimes the information is not available or it’s faked.”
“True lies
Markets work by assimilating and pricing information. But sometimes the information is not available or it’s faked. The Greek debt crisis has focused renewed attention on the accounting procedures used by other European countries to measure their compliance with Eurozone guidelines now that the information shortcomings have been revealed. Investors, having lost confidence in the official numbers provided by Athens are demanding better figures. The Wall Street Journal says new doubts about “sophisticated” reporting practices used in the past are being expressed not just for Portugal but even for core countries like France and Germany. One particularly controversial practice is the use of currency swaps on the advice of, among others, Goldman Sachs.”

February 22, 2010 5:52 am

“Yes – the Govt is misguided in lots of areas. However there are a lot of oil and coal companies with a lot of vested interests”
The CAGW meme is causing the USA to ignore its own vast coal reserves. The USA needs to build coal plants, not windmills and solar, or even nuclear, as it gives the lowest cost stable power and acts to lift the American economy. The money for solar and windmills goes straight to China. How daft is that! Coal is 100% made in America!
The belief that the CAGW meme will somehow lead to better energy policy is bogus. It leads to the downfall of the USA.(Obama, take heed!)

Tom P
February 22, 2010 5:55 am

UK Sceptic (03:22:43) :
“…from what I understand of the satellite data used by Phil Jones it was highly selective.”
Roy Spencer is analysing his own data and finding very good agreement with the CRU temperatures. The period analysed is from 1986 and shows a significant warming trend:

February 22, 2010 5:56 am

The Guardian has closed the comment section and has removed a good number of comments. It’s not likely they were complimentary.
Sachs is astonishingly superficial.

February 22, 2010 5:58 am

I’m not sure that ‘slimy’ captures the articles essence. I would expect something like this from Michael Moore, not a ‘scientist’. I note that Naomi Oreskes’s new book is touted. After the exposure of her warped ‘Global Warming’ research I find it hard to believe she could actually find a publisher.
I note that comments are closed and the moderator deleted a number of comments that are there.

Pamela Gray
February 22, 2010 5:59 am

Well paint me a religious Nazi tobaccy fanatic. Not. I too am currently reeling under the thumb of tobacco smoke and will be spending much time in grief soon enough. Tobacco isn’t even on the “last things” list I would support. Flat earther? Again, not. And the holocaust-flavored term is designed to bully, plain and simple. All of those one-liners aren’t even worthy of printed toilet paper. But Smokey, it doesn’t help to be quoting from Pachy’s book.

February 22, 2010 5:59 am

I work for NOAA on the side of fisheries and ocean research and preservation. I am not a scientist but I do have the sense that things have gotten out of hand. I see these “talking points” in use daily. I see the “non-science minded” jumping on this train of misinformation. These same people are making policies in our governments. This climate change paranoia has recently created a new division in NOAA called NOAA’s climate service. Where do you think the money will come from to fund this? This planet will run low on seafood and clean water in a matter of decades. Much sooner than any effects that anthropogenic climate change will have, however minute it is. These climate change scare tactics are redirecting our financial interests and priorities to the point where we are shooting ourselves in the foot. If you like clean water and seafood, be concerned. WUWT, thanks for speaking out and providing the truth.

February 22, 2010 6:02 am

TinyCo2 (01:26:24) :
Here’s a quote by ABC’s Clive Hamilton earlier:

Prof Hamilton said scientists now have a duty to inform the public about the risks of climate change so action is taken and people are ready to adapt their lifestyles.
“There is a view we should not scare people because it makes them go down their burrows and close the door but I think the situation is so serious that although people are afraid they are not fearful enough given the science,” he said. “Personally I cannot see any alternative to ramping up the fear factor.”

And what, now he’s calling all skeptics terrorists? Yeah, real honest guy, trained in subversion [sarc].

Roger Knights
February 22, 2010 6:02 am

(PS: for non-British readers, the “Guarniad” spelling is a British in-joke, referring to its reputation for errorrs/erorrs, oh, dammit, mistakes!)

But, creditably, it was their own in-house ombudsman who regularly publicized every typo brought to his attention, including “Guarniad” in order to “encourage” the publication’s copy editors to be more careful.

At one time, I was rather strident in my advocacy that tobacco be banned. … [But] 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

There’s a wonderful win/win solution available in the new “electronic cigarette.” It vaporizes a nicotine solution, contained in a replaceable cartridge, eliminating cancer-causing tars and the risks of second-hand smoke. (Of course, as safety-Nazis cavil, there’s the danger of overdosing (the same could be said of water) and of addiction, although that’s a moot point for current smokers.)
Whether it’s 99% safer than tobacco, or only 90% safer, is something we can settle later. For now, the product’s existence provides assurance that tobacco prohibition would not be an intolerable imposition on current addicts and would not be flouted by the populace the way alcohol prohibition was.
Here’s a link to the Wikipedia article on the topic:
Health agency bureaucrats don’t like the idea that the products haven’t been peer reviewed or sought official approval prior to marketing. And they instinctively frown on any advertising that implies health benefits — but that’s primarily because they have an abstinence-based mind-set, and they think that infringes on their “turf.”
The bottom line is that official endorsement of these products, even in the absence of tobacco prohibition, would beneficially impact the nation’s health far more than a continuation of their current mostly futile attempts at tobacco discouragement. Only tiny declines in smoking and snuffing are likely henceforth in the absence of an alternative delivery device.

February 22, 2010 6:03 am

The real trend, alas, is for some intelligent people on either side of important debates to refuse to believe that another intelligent person could come to a different conclusion on the issue at hand. It is so clear to them, that the obvious conclusion to come to is that other intelligent fellow must not “really” not see it –they must have some other agenda causing them to “deny the obvious”.

February 22, 2010 6:05 am

“Climate change science is a wondrous intellectual activity.” — Jeffrey Sachs
I’ll say this, it does make me wonder.

Doug S
February 22, 2010 6:07 am

Jeffrey Sachs seems to be a very confused individual – or – he is in a position to make money from the AGW scam. Perhaps a combination of the two?

February 22, 2010 6:08 am

Thank you for your bravery. Senator Inhofe has suffered abuse for years from the radical environmentalists, but he hasn’t stopped his quest for the truth about CO2. Please don’t let them get you down. I live in the US’s ‘outback’, ie, Texas, where a small city just yesterday ran an article about the fraud; the truth is seeping through.
To anyone familiar with Mao Zedong’s tactics of mind control, this agenda of radical environmentalists/carbon crooks is identical to what happened to the Chinese. The warmists are playing from Mao’s handbook, but they’re verbally abusing anyone who disagrees; and despite James Hansen’s statements, so far they haven’t beaten anyone to death. (‘Wild Swans’ should be read by every parent as it is the chilling memoirs of three generations of a Chinese family living through the nightmare of Mao’s reign, effective because of brainwashing.)

Arthur Glass
February 22, 2010 6:09 am

“Nil carborundum illigitimi”
This much quoted nonsense phrase, usually attributed to an American general (whose name I have mislaid), is not real Latin; it doesn’t even rise to the level of dog Latin.

February 22, 2010 6:17 am

As many have already pointed out, and as I have been saying for months, the AGW scam is a highly organized product of the far left. Soros is clearly the puppet master and he uses cutouts like Fenton and Project Syndicate which are all funded by his OSI to give the impression of a large grassroots movement concerned only with the betterment of mankind when it is really just another way for him to amass money and power.
Lenin coined the term “useful idiots” to describe westerners who sympathized with communism and were used to demonstrate how popular far left idiology was with the masses. There is nothing new under the sun, pun intended.

February 22, 2010 6:17 am

In a few years time, this fraud will probably be in same jail cell with other climate crooks like Hansen, Mann et al
It`s time to start calling these people what they are – criminals.
Lets stop trying to convince these lying crooks that their criminal fraud is based on is “unsound science”. They`re laughing at us because they know it`s all a con, and they’re doing what all good con men do.
Let start calling for criminal trials. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly
And most importantly – call for an amnesty for the first few that come clean now.

February 22, 2010 6:18 am

Has anyone else noticed that some of the “slime” articles are being written by authors who would never normally work this beat? I am thinking of the current thread at Climate Audit and a previous “slime” article by the “Bagpuss the Cat” author.
Jeet Heer who wrote the current article has written the current article, other articles for the G&M is clearly more comfortable with other venues.
Is this a developing trend — where authors with mostly a political bent describe the state of Climate Science?

Alan D McIntire
February 22, 2010 6:20 am

Sachs is one of the reasons I quit subscribing to “Scientific American” years ago. He relies on liberal propaganda rather than
reasoned arguments in his editorials

February 22, 2010 6:25 am

My wife is allergic to tobacco. We don’t allow tobacco smoke anywhere near us.
They think we’d accept their support for our volunteered time helping CA measure Bristlecones and WUWT photograph weather stations?
These people have no ethics.

February 22, 2010 6:25 am

RockyRoad (05:00:18)
What you’re advocating could easily bankrupt nations, leaving them incapable to capitalize the very transition you’re so sure they need to make
As it has already broken Spain, a destroyed by windmills economy.

February 22, 2010 6:26 am

I dissected one paragraph of Sachs’ drivel for fun:
“The fact is that the critics — who are few in number”:
From a BBC poll “only 26% of those asked believed climate change was happening and “now established as largely man-made”. ”
From an Oct ‘09 Pew poll, “found 57 percent of Americans felt there was evidence that the earth was warming, down from 71 percent in April 2008. But only 36 percent attributed this to human activities, compared with 47 percent last year.”
The US’s number likely bests the UK’s 26% at present, thus approximately 3/4 of the US and British citizens are “critics” and Jeffery Sachs is either misinformed, or lying.
“but aggressive in their attacks”
FOI requests are neither “aggressive” nor “attacks”.
” — are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years.”
Umm, I was 8 years old 25 years ago.
“During their long campaign”
I was always skeptical of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative, but only got involved when Obama got elected, cap & trade became a potential reality and the financial and social impacts of this erroneous scientific consensus hit home.
“they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements”
I dare you to say that in a room with Jim Hansen, Richard Lindzen, Michael Mann, John Christy, Gavin Schmidt, Timothy Ball, etc.
“in order to stop action on climate change”
The action on climate change never stops. We are on a 4.5 billion year old continuously evolving planet, its climate will continue to change regardless of what we do.
“with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.”
What bill? We don’t go off to fancy conferences in Copenhagen in our private jets, we work from home in our spare time making our little contribution to undoing the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative.
Jeffrey Sachs is either misinformed, or lying.

February 22, 2010 6:26 am

Andrew W (01:03:26) :
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 may not even be conscious but when choosing between coming
to conclusions that will allow you to keep your job versus concluding
something that might lead to a future in used car salesmanship,
you’ll be surprised how creative people can become. I’ve seen it
many times. In many cases it manifests in the simple form of
keeping one’s mouth shut.
Many climate scientists seem to have missed their
true calling in marketing. It may not be as lucrative, but no
one really expects verifiable accuracy from claims for
non-perscription skin care products…

February 22, 2010 6:28 am

Wow – I used to admire Sachs – a long time ago. What happened? Did fame go to his head or is it his friendship with Bono of U2? This is ridiculous.

February 22, 2010 6:28 am

First of all, I find it interesting that an economist is running Columbia’s Earth Institute. (Same with Pachauri and the IPCC)
Second, I just finished reading Sach’s book called “The End of Poverty” and I have to say, some of the main poverty reduction themes in his book are right out of the 1976 book titled “RIO: Reshaping the International Order – A Guide to the Club of Rome.”
It’s almost as if Sachs is recycling the NIEO (New International Economic Order) that the UN was pushing in the ’70’s.

February 22, 2010 6:31 am

Mr. Watts,
I see the paper as more of a last gasp from an AGW promoter.
The readers, in the comments section, clearly are not buying what Sachs is selling.
I would go forward with the interview- be accessible, but tape your conversations and save the original, and make the transcript available if there is any hint of parsing or plugging by the journalist.
The great thing about skeptics is we simply tell the truth. As long as skeptics do that, skeptics will win, ultimately.
I see Mr. Sachs’ piece as a shriek of pain about the dissolution of his faith. He is losing something he held dear, and is blaming those who he wrongly thinks are taking it form him, instead of those who falsely gave him his faith.

February 22, 2010 6:34 am

What a pity, Anthony, that you actually seem to be buying into the “second-hand smoke” BS (which, exactly like AGW, is nothing but an excuse for erosion of individual liberty based on fraudulent statistics, viz. the late John Daly’s excellent work on the subject). Sorry to hear that your health was weak in your youth, but your blaming SHS is pretty silly because that “effect” – much like human-caused AGW – simply does not exist outside alarmists’ and regulation maniacs’ phrasebooks. You should rather accept that your natural genetic disposition likely makes your respiratory system your weak spot – much as other individuals over-react to other substances like salt or wheat starch, without these substances being “toxic” per se.
PS: I’m a non-smoker, have been all my life, nor do I have any connection – professional or otherwise – with the tobacco, oil, nuclear or pharma industries.
REPLY: You didn’t grow up in it. -A

Hank Henry
February 22, 2010 6:35 am

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.”
Try a little experiment. Go to a blanked google and type in “climate change grants” you should have an indication of how much grant activity is going on in this area even before you hit the search button. I see:
climate change grants for africa
climate change grants australia
climate change grants uk
nasa climate change grant
vermont climate change grant
vermont community climate change grants
community climate change grant
epa climate change grants
retooling for climate change grant
Next, just to zero in, type in “climate change research grants.” I get 19 million hits. If a grant somehow involves or targets “climate change” it presupposes the conclusion we’re trying to debate in here. It’s a pretty simple thing to test. There really is a lot of grant money targeted to the climate change thesis.

Håkan B
February 22, 2010 6:38 am

Bill Tuttle (02:28:33)
To be fair there are actually economists who’ve kept there common sense, Bjorn Lomborg is just one.

February 22, 2010 6:43 am

The Warmist logical repertoire consists of two logical fallacies…
1) Argument ad hominem.
2) Appeal to authority.
Two facts…
1) CO2 is opaque to certain IR frequencies.
2) The Earth is ~1.5C warmer now than it was 400 years ago.
One probable fact…
1) The Earth is 0.7C warmer now than it was in 1880.
And one 50-50 proposition…
1) The late 1990’s to early 2000’s might be slightly warmer than the 1930’s to early 1940’s.
All other facts are simply discarded or attributed to natural variations.
From these logical fallacies, facts and possibilities they conclude…
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
And that unless draconian measures are taken to reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions, a global catastrophe is imminent.
And… Anyone who disagrees with them is a tool of the fossil fuels industry a tobacco denier, a climate change denier or a climate science denier who should be stood up before some version of a Nuremberg war crimes trial.
On top of all that… They have the nerve to call us the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, Moon landing deniers, Creationists, Flat Earthers, etc.
They are the ones who claim that both unusually cold and warm weather, both droughts and floods, both glacial retreat and thickening and even earthquakes and volcanoes are all proof that their hypothesis is right. Last I checked, any hypothesis supported by any and all combinations of observations is unfalsifiable… And therefore unscientific. If either side is behaving like Creation Science advocates, it’s the Warmists.

John Carter
February 22, 2010 6:44 am

Re the use of “denier”, there has been a petition set up in the UK to stop the Prime Minister using that term.
I doubt that it will achieve that objective, but signing is a good way to register your disgust at the use of such an insult.
For UK residents only @
Over 1600 signed so far.

February 22, 2010 6:44 am

The goal of all these “post modern” URBAN MYTHS, mentioned by “Jeffrey” (his unconscious betrayed him), is POWER, but a rather crazy and illogical for any sane reason. Why in the world a group of people, a self chosen “elite”, like the Club of Rome or whatever foolish nany conspiracy bank owners club, could wish to rule the whole world?. Are they inmortals?. This kind of madness, history shows, usually attracts other extreme kind of madness, so I wonder if there is a kind masochistic behaviour which is driving them.

View from the Solent
February 22, 2010 6:45 am

Dated today.
“During the first half of 2009, globally averaged atmospheric CH4 was [approximately] 7ppb greater than it was in 2008, suggesting that the increase will continue in 2009.”
Odd. My calendar is running fast.

Henry chance
February 22, 2010 6:47 am

I am very fond of big oil. Very fond. In fact the whiners and warmists also luve big oil. This winter would have killed most northern population had it not been for big oil. The Petrol fibres in your parka, The chaninsaw to cut firewood, the truch to haul groceries, The spandex fibres in the BVD’s that always get knotted up.
They day they really are against big oil is the day then revert to walking only transportation. From my travels the only mechanical form of transportation that has no oil behind it is a hand carved log canoe. If they use a metal axe head, they used petrol created product.

February 22, 2010 6:50 am

Prof. Sachs doesn’t write articles for fun. His Earth Institute “leads large-scale efforts to promote the mitigation of human-induced climate change”. If there is no “human-induced climate change”, then there is no need to fund the Earth Institute. I wonder whose contribution he secured by writing this article?

February 22, 2010 6:51 am

Anthony, for what it is worth, you have my support over this disgraceful piece by Sachs. Its whole tone is that of a McCarthy-style rant. It is not going to influence my opinion of the wisdom or otherwise of AGW theory, or of the standing of your fine blog, in the slightest.
My sympathy also at your losses of loved ones to tobacco-related diseases. I have never smoked a cigarette in my life, and was implacably opposed to the tobacco industry even before I lost an aunt to smoking-related cancer.
I strongly recommend that Sachs reads Hofstadter’s classic The Paranoid Style In American Politics, 1964. Though aiming mostly at the extreme right here, Hofstadter acknowledged that such intellectual pathology could take hold at either end of the spectrum. Sachs has provided embarrassingly vivid proof of that.

February 22, 2010 6:51 am

From “The Earth Institute, Columbia University” website:
“Jeffrey D. Sachs is the Director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University. He is also Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. From 2002 to 2006, he was Director of the UN Millennium Project and Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the Millennium Development Goals, the internationally agreed goals to reduce extreme poverty, disease, and hunger by the year 2015. Sachs is also President and Co-Founder of Millennium Promise Alliance, a nonprofit organization aimed at ending extreme global poverty.”
He also authored a book called “End of Poverty” what boldly shows off “Foreword by Bono” on the cover.
I expect no less of an attack than what he gave in that article.

February 22, 2010 6:52 am

Those interested in a bit more info on Al Gore’s very real connections to the tobacco industry may wish to take a peek at a blog post I did a few weeks back:
Al Gore’s Tobacco Hypocrisy
All the best!

bill allen
February 22, 2010 6:52 am
This is Sachs email address. I just sent him my thoughts on his knowledge of science. My I suggest that everyone do the same.

Richard M
February 22, 2010 6:57 am

The second stage of grief is anger. It appears Sachs is experiencing both denial (the first stage) and anger at this point. Not unusual for a person whose religion is evaporating before his eyes.
We saw a lot of denial in the last 3 months. Now we are starting to see more and more anger. The process is proceeding as expected. While Sach’s remarks can never be condoned, it is just another sign that skeptics are winning the debate.

February 22, 2010 6:58 am

Another thought occurs. Does this article set a record for the use of logical fallacies? I think he nailed every single one that I know of, along with some really nice non sequiturs.

R. Gates
February 22, 2010 7:00 am

There are certainly far more true scientists who are NOT paid henchmen for the oil & coal interests who are skeptical about AGW, then there ever were who were skeptical about cigarettes and cancer, and so the analogy is crude and “slimy” in the broadest sense. However, there are a few scientists and other political hacks, (and we all know who they are) who are nothing but apologists for fossil fuel interests, and in that narrow sense, the analogy is appropriate.

Roger Knights
February 22, 2010 7:03 am

Greylar (05:32:06) :
I like being called a denier and wear the moniker proudly. As people here have pointed out, if we are deniers then the other side must be believers.

Or “Insisters.”

Bengt Abelsson
February 22, 2010 7:04 am

In Sweden, some politician made a note in his script:
Arguments weak, raise the voice.
Keep up the good work.
Bengt A

February 22, 2010 7:05 am

Dawn Watson said
“Warmest November on record followed by freak cold weather down to minus 20 in Glasgow, and parts of the Tyne freezing over. Ah – the end of climate change – I hear you cry – well no actually my Auntie lives in Vancouver and they’ve had the warmest winter on record – no snow at all.”
The first part is simply not true-November was merely 1 degree warmer than average in Glasgow-caused by a long stretch of warm southerly winds. Vancouver is the warmest city ever to hold the Winter Olympics and seems to have been chosen for reasons other than its suitability to hold a Winter Olympics. They had the warmest January since records began-in 1937. That is hardly extensive and records commence right at the end of a period similar in warmth to today-the 1920’s and 1930’s.

February 22, 2010 7:05 am

This was cathartic.
Really. Deeply moving on several levels.
Give them bloody hell, Anthony.
For all our sakes.
And, thank you.

John from CA
February 22, 2010 7:07 am

You chose the right word – it was “slimy” and an indication why Sachs is in the business school and not in Science.

February 22, 2010 7:08 am

Dapper Jeffrey is a Pauchauri IRI acolyte:
It couldn’t possibly be the case that Jeffrey is a slimy hypocrite – could it?

February 22, 2010 7:11 am

Of course you’re a Flat Earther, moon landing denier, and tobacco loving sycophant.
It’s True!
Sachs got it off the internet, so it must be true!!!

February 22, 2010 7:11 am

(and others) I don’t know what you expected from the Guardian. From day one it has been a key mouthpiece for the Climateers [as distinguished from actual Scientists – most of whom I consider genuine]. Their goal was and is to promote fear and make money. They see the scam crumbling and desperation sets in. Can’t have a Carbon shell game if nobody will play. All that investment, all those dreams – cry me a river. Sachs is exactly what he appears to be – desperate.
[early para]
The global public is disconcerted by these attacks. If experts cannot agree that there is a climate crisis, why should governments spend billions of dollars to address it?
So, in his world we are paid (unspecified amounts) by dark, malevolent (but as yet unspecified) forces to spread (unspecified) “disinformation” but he worries that the “billions” (hundreds of, if not more) currently available to the climateers will dry up if the public ever get wise. Now run those numbers by me again Jeffrey.
[xgates] Whatever the details of this specific case, the studies in question represent a tiny fraction of the overwhelming scientific evidence that points to the reality and urgency of man-made climate change.
Now why do I keep reading this statement in various guises lately? The details (you know – actual temperatures) don’t matter – only the (as yet unidentified) “overwhelming scientific evidence”.
Religion for some, endless source of billions in taxpayer cash for the rest. Money and Religion – a Hornets nest in any combination – no wonder they are getting desperate.
Paul Dennis (00:37:09) : Good post. If it’s any consolation, I hear the “Indy” will probably be one of the first to close its doors. Again cry me a river.

February 22, 2010 7:11 am

Dawn Watson (03:58:56) :
er what’s on this about climate wars? Its only a bloody war on the internet – outside its looking pretty freaky – Warmest November on record followed by freak cold weather down to minus 20 in Glasgow, and parts of the Tyne freezing over. Ah – the end of climate change – I hear you cry – well no actually my Auntie lives in Vancouver and they’ve had the warmest winter on record – no snow at all.
even if climate change wasn’t happening and wasn’t down to GHGs – have you not thought of dwindling fossil fuel reserves?? energy security anyone?

Fossil fuel reserves are not dwindling. Global proven oil reserves have more than doubled over the last 30 years. Current natural gas and coal reserves are in even more robust condition.
Proved Oil Reserves Minus Annual Production 1980-2004

A lot of the low carbon solutions (i.e. energy efficiency) measures should be applauded as they will avoid us having us send our troops to different countries to die just to secure future energy resources. It’s a bit of a no-brainer really. It saddens me that there are so many people out there getting so emotional about CC – when there could be using that energy into making positive change instead of moaning on about being swindled and about ’stealth taxes’ (I know this as my own father harps on about it having being brainwashed by the daily express (he didn’t do any science at school).

It saddens me that so many people are so ignorant of the reality of energy issues and the rationale for using military force in places like Iraq.
Low carbon energy sources, apart from nuclear power, are far more expensive per megawatt hour than fossil fuels…
MWh vs. $$
Iraq’s maximum daily oil production prior to the Iran-Iraq war was ~3.5 million BOPD… A literal “drop in the bucket.”
Iraq Oil Production
3.5 million BOPD is roughly equivalent to OPEC’s daily excess production capacity over the last 20 years…
OPEC Spare Capacity

As a country we have some serious energy decisions to make, and embarking on a low carbon future would mean we are more resilient and less dependent on volatile foreign energy sources.
Stop bitching, and think about how we want our future to be, support a large scale refurbishment of existing building stock, it’ll help eradicate fuel poverty, create local jobs and kick start the economy….
Yes – the Govt is misguided in lots of areas. However there are a lot of oil and coal companies with a lot of vested interests and a lot of £££ at stake to keep the status quo – just think on that a little would you?

Anyone who takes home a paycheck, who pays an electric bill or drives a motor vehicle has a vested interest in this subject. The $$$ or £££ at stake are astronomical.
People like Jeffrey Sachs and the UN are trying to terrorize the Western capitalist democracies into accepting a form of global Envriomarxism, in which those nations with “ability” foot the bill for those nations with “need” to ameliorate and environmental problem that does not exist.

February 22, 2010 7:14 am

I don’t think this article has had the desired effect. I have been thinking about donating but never get around to it. This one put me over the edge. Hope it helps.

February 22, 2010 7:15 am

O/T but A blogger for Discover Magazine is asking for suggestions for questions to ask Michael Mann in an interview.

AGW Denier
February 22, 2010 7:18 am

While the list of ingredients in tobacco smoke is long, there are many highly toxic substances that truly don’t belong there, such as arsenic, cadmium, nickel, fungicides & pesticides. In the US, if the tobacco industry had been brought under FDA rules decades ago and treated as a food product, these substances would have been banned long ago. I know of no studies that have looked at the improvement in safety that removal of the compounds would have entailed. Many people are already exposed to many of the substances rated as “poisons” from other sources (such as acetone, ammonia, ethanol) (, so their toxicity level in tobacco is questionable .
Even with the new FDA oversight it is still unclear if they will get into this depth of regulation (
I am not a smoker but I fully support their right to smoke and do not think that they should be “punished” with ever higher taxes on smoking products. Mostly the attitude is just to try and stop usage of the product with ever greater harshness.

John Galt
February 22, 2010 7:19 am

Doug in Dunedin (00:55:40) :
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.

It’s always nice to feel you have a majority support of popular opinion, but the American public is woefully ignorant of science and economics.

February 22, 2010 7:23 am

Directly from the book and guides, don’t address/debate the facts, attack the persons. Unfortunately, you will see more and more of this approach. Anthony, thank you for hanging in their to bring discussion to the science

February 22, 2010 7:25 am

It’s only an op-ed by a scared little man. They should be encouraged to write more of them.
The more the general public sees this, the less they believe.

Tom Black
February 22, 2010 7:31 am

Big Oil coerced the CRU into sending all those damaging e-mails.
Big Oil forced the IPCC to lie about the Himalayan glaciers, (and all the rest)
Big Oil twisted Pachauri arm to talk about voodoo science and rubbing asbestos all over your face.
Big Oil manipulated the IPCC to publish non peer reviewed documents against their will
Big Oil tricked Michael Mann into leaving out the MWP.
Big Oil convinced NOAA and NASA to manipulate and exaggerate the true level and rate of “global warming
Big Oil….list goes on and on..
And finally….. Big Oil will send me a cheque for $10 for contributing this dissenting view.
Wow , Big Oil has been busy, no wonder the oil prices have dropped over the past two years, they aren’t spending enough time on their business.
Then the AGW alarmist’s will try and win me over with disparaging remarks

Another Thomas
February 22, 2010 7:33 am

The guardian article was an example of gutter journalism but it didn’t come as a surprise. The IPCC and the AGW are crumbling but the sceptics camps also has their weaknesses. The links of some to the oil and tobaco industries will naturally be used to paint a target on all sceptics to guide the mudslingers and it works, mud sticks. I’m sceptical about the intentions of some (not all) who are linked to the tobaco and oil industry too. There is no point in complaining about this problem every time it is latched onto by the media whilst doing nothing to address the issue.

February 22, 2010 7:34 am

Anthony, Much as I admire your blog and the tremendous work you and your contributors have made to the ongoing collapse of the AGW fraud, I think you debase your argument by using the word, slimy. By using this word you descend to the level of the sort of ad hominen postings common in the Guardian climate blogs. Please, reasoned debate only.

February 22, 2010 7:34 am

Anthony: Good. Let them nail their colours to the mast as we saw it off at the bottom. They can only win by keeping out the science. They might be playing for time for a summer, El Nino inspired, heat wave to go “see!” I feel your frustration but i also believe it’s related to your view that the skeptical view should have more ‘traction’ that it does. You’ll still be having the same fights 20 years from now as all the good skeptics retire from their positions. AGW have tried to buy time by saying the solar minimum is going to arrest AGW for now but, give it 13 years or so, AGW will be back with a vengeance and that we have a window of opportunity to fix the planet. See the time frame? See what you are up against? Just relax my good man. Day at a time and all that. With deep respect. ….Johnnny

February 22, 2010 7:34 am

When do I finally see some money from big-oil for constantly telling everbody and his friend about the climate science scandal? Nope, still poor.
P L E A S E, keep going Anthony.

February 22, 2010 7:36 am

Andrew W (01:03:26) :
“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.”
Since when do governments give money to scientists to study non-problems?
What is NASA doing studying the weather? Oh I remember, the Ozone hole was going to kill us all, so NASA put up a satellite to measure it.

February 22, 2010 7:37 am

Project Syndicate also has Bjørn Lomborg …

February 22, 2010 7:39 am

… you need a staff though. And if you need funding…put up a widget that people can donate funds to WUWT. If you have this burden of what you’ve taken on only on your shoulders, it’s too much. it’s too stressful and too much work. Dig in for the very, very long haul.

February 22, 2010 7:42 am

And this about another of our favorite “Climate Slimers”:

February 22, 2010 7:44 am

Bernie (05:50:38) :
The Guardian has closed off comments – total was 1037. I have not read them all – it seemed very slow – but judging from the reactions to and recommendations of the comments Sachs’s piece was seen for exactly what it was – a PR hit piece.
I am sure those 1037 commenting were also paid by big oil and big tobacco.
I hate seeing conspiracy theories in any debate, thats why I like WUTW so much. Theie use is evidence of bakruptcy of reason and argument. This also applies to the skeptic side, although after the e-mail scandal it is not entirely baseless.

February 22, 2010 7:45 am

You acknowledge that their sense of logic is entertaining, and their ever so updated sense of political argument in the broadband internet era even more so.
It’s no wonder that they whine about the sceptic being a dino’old man stuck in the sixties still, when the agw-fanatic “itself” are the one that are stuck back in the day.
That the hilarious childish attempt for defense arguments with such utter drivel has a GISS/NASA endorsement comes, no more, as a surprise.

February 22, 2010 7:45 am

RockyRoad (05:00:18) :
Dawn Watson (03:58:56) :
What you’re advocating could easily bankrupt nations, leaving them incapable to capitalize the very transition you’re so sure they need to make.

Dawn, have you ever seen a riot? Cold, hungry people don’t care about carbon free utopia they want food and fuel. Rapidly destroying your infrastructure without any real plan or alternative is a gamble with very real consequences should it go wrong.

Methow Ken
February 22, 2010 7:45 am

For the last few weeks I foolishly thought the Guardian might actually have started to dip its toe into a vague semblance of objective journalism.
Back to reading the Telegraph, when I want a U.K. perspective on the news.
If as a previous comment pointed out George Soros & Co. are funding
Project Syndicate, that pretty much tells tells the story.
WRT the content of this particular piece by Sachs, another word in addition to ”slimy” also comes to mind: Despicable.
OTOH: The level and extent of shrill, unsupported innuendo and recycled ad hominem attacks employed by Sachs in this article is IMO a good indicator of how desperate the hard-core AGW fanatics have become; as the whole AGW scam continues to self-destruct around them.
Kudos to WUWT for continuing to provide a beacon of scientific objectivity in a sea of agenda-driven political correctness. And remember:
Success is the best revenge (note WUWT hit counter now over 36.7 million).
Keep up the good work. . . .

February 22, 2010 7:47 am

Anthony – I completely sympathise with your emotions. Reading Sach’s article makes the blood boil as almost every single sentence is either a falsehood of a twisted perversion of truth. But the best thing to do is to ignore it.
The only solace I can draw is that such articles are indicative of a movement which is in its death throes – there is no where left to go but for all out character assassination on those who are winning. The next stop for them is that parking lot in Arizona.

February 22, 2010 7:48 am

“Since when do governments give money to scientists to study non-problems?”
Every day, Harry, every day. That’s the whole point.
It’s gotten so bad that all of the *real* problems at all levels are being ignored so we can throw money away at the non-problems.

February 22, 2010 7:50 am

EdB (05:52:10) :
“Yes – the Govt is misguided in lots of areas. However there are a lot of oil and coal companies with a lot of vested interests”
The vested interest that a lot of oil and coal (and even gas and nuclear) companies is to provide you energy at the lowest price with the most efficient infrastructure.
Where they have serious shortcomings is generally when a government regulatory commission (PUC) fail to apply market principles to their charges, That should be a warning to anybody that’s contemplating letting such groups guide a transformation to an inefficient, unreliable cabal of wind and solar “solutions”. Neither their investment money nor their jobs are on the line; that’s why letting somebody else run your wallet is such a bad idea.

February 22, 2010 7:51 am

Anthony, You might want to read Jeffrey Sachs’ socialist diatribe published monthly in “Scientific American”. In the March issue he pursues the same points regarding “vested interests”. In addition he goes after politicians from oil and coal producing states and “The Wall Street Journal”. SOS.

February 22, 2010 7:55 am

Welcome to the Big Leagues, Anthony. From here, it will only “get worse than we thought.”

R. de Haan
February 22, 2010 7:56 am

Feb 21, 2010
Climate Debate in San Diego Union Tribune
Pro: Climate change is real; there is no debate
By Walter C. Oechel
This article is published at and I wonder why?

February 22, 2010 7:57 am

I’m a skeptic. I guess Sachs would claim I’ve got connections with big oil because my father operated first a Phillips 66 and then a Texaco service station. I too saw what tobacco can do to health. My father was a chain smoker and died at 57. He was also an alcoholic which didn’t help. My Mom smoked too. She got lung cancer and was able to fight it. Thought she had the cancer licked when it came back in her brain. She died at 68.
People who resort to personal attacks on others that disagree with them are the smallest, weakest humans on Earth. Unfortunately they often have big mouths.

Peter Miller
February 22, 2010 7:58 am

It’s not a big deal.
No serious minded individual reads the Guardian – it has always been the choice of losers and lefties.
The paper only survives because of its Wednesday edition’s advertising revenue, this usually contains more than 100 pages of non-jobs in the government sector.
If your target market is losers and lefties, that’s who you write for. That’s why you get so many of this type of article in the Guardian.

P Wilson
February 22, 2010 8:02 am

I’ve read through the article in the Guardian. There are no explanations, no scientific expositions using data, but just the usual mentality of 2+2=5, and therefore anyone who doesn’t believe 2+2=5 are dangerous heretics that want to bring the world to doom. Those who don’t believe in the ideology have no desire to bring the world to doom, but simply don’t believe that 2+2=5
Because the dogmatists cannot develop any arguments based on a hard look at data they have to be galling and spurious as tactics about those who know better (Tobacco and the climate have nothing whatsoever to do with each other).
Such subjective methods as these – forcefulness, propaganda and humiliation are not the way scientists develop arguments. There is a close relationship between fraud and the desire to scorn those who don’t accept it.

February 22, 2010 8:07 am

Tom P,
Dr. Spencer’s article is also on this site as a guest post. While there is general agreement with the CRU trend, you should also keep in mind that this analysis was only done for the last 24 years and for the Northern Hemisphere only.
It has nothing to do with Dr. Jones’ other questionable behavior outlined in the CRU e-mails (namely possibly illegal avoidance of FOIA, gaming of the peer review process, graph-smithing the proxy graphs, among other things).
One other thing to note in regards to Dr. Roy and CRU… Dr. Roy’s analysis was done with raw data and gave a very similar resultant trend for the Northern Hemisphere… maybe this was already public knowledge, but that seems to indicate that for CRU there was no UHI correction whatsoever applied (all other things being equal of course, and assuming that there was population and urban center growth in the last 24 years).
Dr. Spencer’s results are interesting, but please do not read more into it than is there.

Steve Goddard
February 22, 2010 8:08 am

The Guardian is getting a lot of Internet revenue through publishing widely read pieces (of ****) like this.

February 22, 2010 8:09 am

Generally speaking, I don’t really care much about what people think (of me) as long as I know that the science is right. That is what I would say here on this post as well.The CO2 scare is a scam. I dare any scientist to prove to me in an experiment that the 70 odd ppm’s of CO2 that were added to the atmosphere since 1960 are relevant and indeed a cause for global warming.
I also think we should start warning the world that global cooling is on its way and in terms of the activity noted on the sun, a period of more clouds is now coming or on its way (Svensmark’s theory).
Obviously more cloud cover leads to more precipitation and subsequent (global) cooling.
I think therefore it not so strange to observe that as a result we have:
1) more snow (everywhere in the NH during winter)
2) more rain (now Madeira) also here in South Africa (except for the southern parts)
3) which eventually may lead to a rise in river levels in the areas where we have this excessive precipitation
Hence we should issue a stern warning to all news agencies and authorities especially in Europe and USA to check all the river levees !!!

February 22, 2010 8:09 am

Ahhh Jefferey Sachs. He’s one of those believing in utopian end world hunger by providing a dollar a day to the third world. What he doesn’t get is that the problem in the third world country isn’t a matter of money or material but rather governance. Third world governments are really corrupt, waste their country’s wealth, and don’t care about their own people. If their own government doesn’t look out for its people how exactly would several billion dollars in aid to those country help?
Seeing as he’s a know-nothing in his own field of expertise, I don’t see how he think to comment on climate science.
Actually this is nice. It’s all empty name calling.