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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Empire strikes back….
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7266031/Royal-Navy-warships-on-standby-over-Falklands-oil-dispute.html
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.
The Guardian is getting a lot of Internet revenue through publishing widely read pieces (of ****) like this.
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 !!!
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.
More pictures:
Jeffrey and Pachauri together:
http://www.childfamily.gr/gr/our_activities/2007_international_humanitarian_forum.cfm
Jeffrey and Pachauri, and a mutual friend:
http://www.fortuneforum.org/images/renu_and_pucharuari_2.jpg
http://www.fortuneforum.org/graphics/Renu%20and%20jeffery%20sachs.jpg
Oh as an aside, what the hell do you expect from the Grauniad.
Anthony
Thanks for your post and your humanity. Never forget that Jeff Sachs has built his career in the loving arms of (1) the UN and (2) the global financial syndicate. Global warming presents a huge source of profit for (1) elite 3rd worlders (also VERY rich even by 1st world standards) and (2) the global financial syndicate. So, we need not look to him for any form of credibility what-so-ever!
Second, have you considered that this piece may have been ghost written with Prof. Sachs affixing his name to give the piece credibility? Certainly that it is a shop job from this outfit in Prague fits the bill.
As you know too well, there is BIG money behind the alarm of global warming, much of it focused on the financial sector. So, these sort of attacks will continue so long as these interests feel that it is profitable to engage in this game.
If you are correct about the science, and I think you are, Hansen’s alarmist 1988 predictions will increasing look foolish and people will peel away from the movement in search of profit elsewhere. As already seems to be happening, given the news of late.
I note that Prof Sachs is an economist. A UK-based blog, “Dizzy Thinks” had the following to say about economists:-
“Economics is a pseudo-science based on inherent prejudicial bedrock assumptions, or more cynically, and accurately put, the leading economists of the world don’t really know their arses from their elbows but they’ll have a good fight with each other about which part of their body they should sit on.”
Nicely sums up why you’ve just been “savaged by a dead sheep” (c) Dennis Healey.
Mark (06:28:54) : You got it Mark!, read my post above: JonesII (06:44:28) :
A little OT, but the Grauniad was never the same after it moved to London and stopped being the Manchester Guardian sometime in the Sixties. The French have an apt (but rather rude) expression, which describes the current rag to a T: “ils pètent plus haut que leurs culs.” (Apologies to any native French-speakers here!)
Jeffrey Sachs’s first rise to celebrity status came in the 1980s when, as a young professor in Harvard, almost by chance he was invited by the Bolivian government to help tackle their hyperinflation of some 20,000 a year. I followed at the time. His solution was simple: since the government could not collect its ordinary taxes and so had to print money to pay for its expenses, it should concentrate its efforts on collecting the tax on fuel (over which the government had control) and simply drastically cut the budget and/or raise the fuel tax until revenues and expenses were balanced. This simple idea did bring down the inflation to around 10% a year very quickly, at the cost of a regressive tax. It could be argued that the result (bringing hyperinflation under control) did justify the method and negative side effects. The problem is that that pretty simple solution, which only needs political will to be implemented, made Sachs into a “whiz kid” and “miracle worker”. And as often happens in such cases, they then think they possess superior intelligence and wisdom about pretty much everything. A sort of messiah complex. Something similar to Paul Krugman, who, from a rather good and low-profile commentator on specific economic issues became a sort of freak with his “treason against the planet” statements.
Regarding the Guardian’s readership: I believe, the paper is now officially targeted at local council diversity outreach officers, and those of that profession who are looking for new positions, in particular.
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.
REALLY?!!!
If you refurbish houses to passiv house standard – fuel povery could be eradicated – costs estimated at £40bn /year for 40 years in the Uk. Yes, pretty expensive but we dish out £27bn /year on fuel payments anyway. And compared to the bank bailouts? Therefore eradicating the need for heating for 90% of the time. People certainly wouldn’t be going cold. And then we needn’t be going to war – killing people in the name of oil – just to heat our homes.
Or do you lot advocate wars to secure future fossil reserves? Yes oil is running out -otherwise the Albertan oil sands wouldn’t be getting expoited – these have a very low energy returned on energy invetsted (EROEI). Gas, conventional oil sources, renewables (large scale wind etc) have large ones.
Is it really a gamble to future proof our homes from energy price hikes in the future?? the comment I loved best from you was:
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.
I frankly don’t believe you – and neither would 99.9% of society. Oil and gas companies (as well as other corporations) are there to make profit for shareholders. They are not a charity case!! This comment was actually laughable….
Moscow under an all time record pack of snow!
Last record 1966 broken!
http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/6107003/__Moskou_onder_recordpak_sneeuw__.html?cid=rss
The [tax exempt] Guardian news group has its fingers in a lot of pies: click
There is a good list of companies in that link whose competitors should be patronized instead.
John Carter (06:44:10) : “the use of “denier”, there has been a petition set up in the UK (snip)
For UK residents only @ur momisugly http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Deniers/ ”
In fact it’s for UK *citizens* only – whether or not currently resident in UK.
Don’t worry, be happy.
Sachs is among a broad spectrum of people in government, academia and NGOs who have completely abandoned integrity under the guise of THE greater cause.
Their approach has long expanded beyond the climate debate. In fact it grew out of other issues and arenas as activism adopted the fanatic’s methods.
However the enormity of the AGW cause called for the new extremes of the fanatic’s methods we have witnessed.
Sachs and other recent displays are a culmination of that process going very rotten to the core.
It seems these ethically bankrupt activists have been thinking they need only ramp up their attacks to preserve their lofty establishment selves and squash the dissent.
Having run that play too many times in the last few months, while the movement collapses, the ultimate cause of AGW has turned to panic and the last ditch efforts of a surrounded fugitive.
With barely more to do but put the cuffs on the movement these final swings of resistance are nothing but the futile struggles of captured criminals.
I urge others to join me in applauding Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Jeff Id, Joe D’Aleo, John Coleman, and many others [Willis] who write about climate science issues, for their successful pursuit.
” zt (08:17:19) :
Regarding the Guardian’s readership: I believe, the paper is now officially targeted at local council diversity outreach officers, and those of that profession who are looking for new positions, in particular.”
Well, that’s a step up from George Monbiot’s close friendship to George the Jihadist Supporter Galloway. They both founded the Respect Party – currently Europe’s only Marxist-Islamist coalition.
It’s also a step up from the Guardian’s support for Stalinism back when George Bernard Shaw wrote for the newspaper.
Ah yes, big oil is BAD…until you need to jet off to the beaches of Bali for another Climate Conference!
http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/un-eco-commissars-on-bali-again/
I say we fuel their planes with peanut oil and see how that works out for them…
I read the Guardian article before coming over here, and was utterly amazed to discover that Sachs is actually a “Professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, home to NASA GISS”.
That makes him an AGW professional, utterly dependent on continued AGW fund-flows not only for his livelihood but also on his personal raison-d’etre.
So maybe we are seeing a man acutely scared by the prospect of an impending collapse of his world, and ‘lashing out’. Ironic really but somehow just, to see someone who has been involved in putting fear into others, having it rebound personally, with interest.
Well done Anthony! I think you could claim that wig as a trophy.
Galileo was a sceptic. I am proud to call myself a sceptic too!
It isn’t about the numbers. It is about the facts.