The most slimy essay ever from the Guardian and Columbia University

Opinion by Anthony Watts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Syndicate PO Box 130 120 00 Prague 2 Czech Republic

So much for transparency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Us

Mailing Address

The Earth Institute, Columbia University

405 Low Library, MC 4335

535 West 116th Street

New York, NY 10027

Inquiries

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

General Inquiries

Judy Jamal

jjamal@ei.columbia.edu

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

Scientific Information or Expertise

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

Earth Institute Media Contact

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

Kevin Krajick kkrajick@ei.columbia.edu

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

Kyu-Young Lee klee@ei.columbia.edu

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

Kim Martineau kmartineau@ei.columbia.edu

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

Earth Institute Director Jeffrey Sachs

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

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 1 vote
Article Rating
529 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
TJA
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.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/02/22/announcing-my-next-point-of-inquiry-guest-climatologist-michael-mann-ask-your-questions-now/

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) (http://www.tobaccofreeutah.org/chemicals.htm), 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 (http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm171683.htm).
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) :
Anthony
In every newspaper I read where there are articles on climate change, whether pro or anti CAGW, the overwhelming opinion of the public response is sceptical of CAGW and these show contempt for the proponents. The public is not fooled and eventually the truth will become apparent – even to the likes of Obama and Brown both of whom seem to be bereft of any depth of thinking or common sense.
Your blog is a beacon of light.
Regards
Doug

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.

nonein2008
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

latitude
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.

johnnythelowery
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

freethinker
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.

harrywr2
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.

Neo
February 22, 2010 7:37 am

Project Syndicate also has Bjørn Lomborg …
http://www.project-syndicate.org/series/global_warning/description

johnnythelowery
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.

RockyRoad
February 22, 2010 7:42 am

And this about another of our favorite “Climate Slimers”:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/19/how-al-gore-wrecked-planet-earth/
🙂

paul
February 22, 2010 7:44 am

Bernie (05:50:38) :
Anthony:
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.

1DandyTroll
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.

3x2
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. . . .

Imran
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.

wws
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.

RockyRoad
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”
—————
Reply:
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.

Frankly
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.

Bruckner8
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 icecap.us and I wonder why?

1 8 9 10 11 12 22