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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony!
Wow, one of your very best posts and a complete contrast with Sachs’ piece.
I do hope he has the guts to respond to your challenge but somehow I doubt it.
“Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain, We must not be distracted from science’s urgent message: we are fuelling dangerous changes in Earth’s climate” by Jeffrey Sachs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/19/climate-change-sceptics-science
Well Jeffrey I’ve never written about tobacco until this sentence and the same goes for acid rain thus I prove your assertions wrong you foolish man.
It’s no longer enough to write claims such as “we are fuelling dangerous changes in Earth’s climate” Jeffrey Sachs, you must PROVIDE the actual hard evidence for every claim made EVERY time you make any claims.
When you and your cohorts cry wolf long enough people get fed up with it Jeffrey Sachs and demand hard evidence of the causality link of the claim that man causes the warming as alleged in the AGW hypothesis. Prove it Jeffrey. It’s no longer enough to simply state your beliefs, you must provide hard evidence.
Oh, wait a minute, you can’t provide the hard evidence so you attack the character of those who have the gall to ask questions of your wild unproven allegations about climate change causes.
And that’s just the response to the title and byline of your article!
pwl
http://www.PathsToKnowledge.NET
Never written about tobacco or acid rain till this sentence! (Well the one above). Never received any money from big tobacco nor big oil. I’m a systems scientist and a computer scientist who makes a living designing, writing, maintaining complex software systems for banks, engineering companies, insurance companies, the movie and video industry, mobile phone applications, and even have authored commercially successful video games. I write in assembly language, C, C++, Java, Smalltalk and so many other languages, including work on a new object oriented language. I’m an expert in cellular automata having invented a number of unique Eden Generators. I’ve written simulation systems. My site Paths To Knowledge dot Net makes no money for me and in fact costs me time and money to operate, it also has no ads. I am dedicated to the scientific method and have been seeking any hard evidence of the alleged AGW hypothesis and have yet to find any that can withstand close scrutiny. People drive over bridges designed and engineered with my software – their lives depend upon accurate scientific and engineering calculations to the point where we needed extended double precision math; accuracy to millimeters matter and to get that you actually have to be accurate to 1,000 or 10,000 of millimeters to err on the side of safety. I diagnose complex systems for a living and have extended the debugging capabilities of a number of computer programming languages to provide much more depth in the debugging of complex concurrent multi-threaded applications. Times are tight, so if you’re with big oil I sure could use a lucrative software development contract right about now, or maybe you’re with some group that wants to prove or disprove the alleged AGW hypothesis… I sure could use a software development or systems science vetting contract… Of course no matter how much someone pays me for consulting my opinions on matters of science are independent, honest, and straight forward. That’s actually why clients hire me, they want an honest unbiased opinion on their complex systems that they often don’t get from their own employees. My clients don’t want yes men, they want facts supported by hard evidence, they want systems that work and produce correct results reflecting the relevant aspects of the real world. Bridges and buildings must stay up. Accounts must balance. Concurrent programs must work correctly. Excellence must prevail, or we’re doomed to live in the Idiocracy.
Anthony, not for the first time you have snipped me for making an observation about a remark by a troll. And then later I find that my sarcasm becomes common place, i.e., Monbiot vs Moonbat.
It would appear that in your and my case we are two people separated by a common language.
I have always found the alarmists to derogate the work and character of their critics based on associations and past comments quite ironic. The patron saint of AGW has always been Svante Arrhenius, the father of the green house effect. Although the Wikipedia bio page for him seems to have been sanitized quite a bit since I first looked at it a couple of years ago, it still contains this passage,
Svante Arrhenius was one of several leading Swedish scientists actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been proposed as a Nobel Institute.[citation needed] Arrhenius was a member of the institute’s board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909.[citation needed] Swedish racial biology was world-leading at this time, and the results formed the scientific basis for the Compulsory sterilization program in Sweden.
As I said the bio has been sanitized, but even in its present state, reading it hardly leads one to view him as one of nature’s noblemen, and if you pursue less biased outlooks, the portrait gets nothing but worse. To be consistent should we not discard the greenhouse effect on the basis of the character flaws of its creator, without even needing to mention its potential scientific flaws.
oops, should be “efforts to derogate”
Eric Smith,
“Sachs is a necon mega criminal who, with his AGW pal Soros, handed the best part of the Russian economy over to seven oligarchs.”
Soros helped to panic Yeltsin’s government in handing over the economy to prevent the communists from getting hold of it. It was viewed as a last ditch attempt to privatise. I understand that Soros now regrets the advice he gave.
Asking for your own contribution and printing Jeffrey Sach’s article is hardly slimy – it shows they are at least making some attempt to capture both sides of the debate. More than can be said for the Daily Mail (how many times have they been successfully sued for libel?), National Post, or many other publications. I don’t think you should shy away from contributing just because of one offensive article – if anything you should write a rebuttal piece for the Guardian (and/or other publications), along the lines of what you said above.
Eric Smith said:
“The Guardian is an oil company sponsored, corporate rag.”
I’m not sure that is true as you provide no proof, but even if it is, how does that make the Guardian different from any other Paper?
Anthony – I must agree with Andrew W (12:01:01). Would you really defend that list of 75? Really?
Sach’s hair it must be a wig!
harleyrider1978 (03:38:58) : … 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%…
Anthony, I feel for your situation. But I have to admit harleyrider’s careful statements too. I also have my own stories… on both sides and in both directions. What helps me is to remember that originally smoking the pipe of peace was a sacred activity, just used for sacred purposes. Cigarettes abandoned the sense of the sacred… and added toxic additives… and were used as a displacement activity, usually some kind of avoidance of deeper life issues. In a very similar way, alcohol has its sacred place in Christian communion but in excess is a devastating killer.
Doug in Dunedin (10:00:09) :
The lawyers are already on the march. There are several types of legal challenges underway: administrative appeals of the EPA endangerment findings; administrative requests to EPA to withdraw its finding; administrative appeals per FOIA to EPA and NASA to compel production of documents; lawsuits per FOIA to compel EPA and NASA to compel production of documents; lawsuits by Pacific Legal Foundation, US Chamber of Commerce, Competitive Enterprises Institute, States of Texas and Virginia to either legally review EPA finding in a US Court of Appeals per the APA or in a US District Court declaratory and injunctive relief and to void the Finding for several reasons.
“The Guardian is an oil company sponsored, corporate rag.”
No, the Guardian is a government sponsored rag, subsisting from the copious streams of advertising revenue for comfy public sector non jobs. When the axe falls on public spending, so shall fall the Guardian.
Wow, “slimy” is too much of a compliment for this ^!@ur momisugly!#$@ur momisugly#!#@ur momisugly%!!!
Brought tears to my eyes 🙁
Think I’ll cruise on over to the Guardian and post this thread on the comments & urge every one else to do some venting over there too
As to why a reasonable person might want to maintain their privacy on the Internet, especially in the midst of such an angry, polarized debate, let’s look at e-mails sent by “skeptics” to scientists with whom they disagreed (h/t tinyCO2):
“If we see you continue, we will get extremely organised and precise against you.”
“F**k off mate, stop the personal attacks. Just do your science or you will end up collateral damage in the war, GET IT.”
“Did you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-raped and then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parents socialist beliefs and actions?
“Burn in hell. Or in the main street, when the Australian public finally lynchs you.”
“Or you will be chased down the street with burning stakes and hung from your f**king neck, until you are dead, dead, dead!”
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm
I would urge anyone to think twice before exposing themselves and their families to that kind of rage.
Putting aside scientific disagreements, it seems obvious that a layman had spoken: AGW science is not credible and the restrictions on CO2 emissions are bad for economy and should not be imposed. Weather it is scientifically “correct” or not, it is clear that such sentiment dominates public opinion. It is quite amazing what my colleagues scientists don’t understand in this message. And it is shocking that they continue pushing their agenda while calling layman names. It looks like they really forget (or never thought of) that their salaries are paid by layman who is taxed too much. I would like to advise my colleagues, concerned with the wellbeing of those ignorant masses, to solicit funding for their research from the private sources. Bill Gates, Al Gore, Bono, the names that first are coming to mind as potential sources for such funding. Why NASA Goddard Center, Columbia or Penn State should hang on our neck employing quite a number of people who do questionable or worthless research (as appears to us) and draw 100k+ salaries ripped from taxpayer’s pocket while demonstrating their intellectual superiority in front of those “ignorant trolls”, i.e. majority of us?
Andrew W (12:01:01) : Since the list “75 reasons to be sceptical about ‘global warming’” is all Anthony seems willing to give me as a scientific report on the science which disproves global warming, I am now reading it. There are a huge number of non-science items in it, and the many of the items which purport to be about science take me to newspaper articles, not actual scientific studies (yes, I will follow the links, but it takes time). Frankly, I was hoping for better.
REPLY: Hope all you want. I run a business during the day, with occasional times spent here. I’m not going to drop everything simply because you demand it your way. Your arrogance is astounding. – Anthony
“I have seen people hanged for making statements way less inflammatory than this.”
I never have, but I’ve wanted to!
now thass a joke there, just trying to lighten things up a bit. 😉
Andrew W (12:01:01) :
Anthony, there’s almost nothing on that list that’s correct, I’m surprised you link to it as I’m certain you’re smart enough to know it’s mostly nonsense.
That’s a troll reply
Lets play a game here:
Globally, the mean temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere is particularly sensitive to the strength and duration of cloud formations. Large scale cloud formations change the atmospheric opacity and convection; as always when comparing mean temperatures, the altitude at which the measurement is made matters, but to the extent it is sensible to speak of a mean temperature for Earth… The mean temperature on Earth, averaged over the year can change by many degrees from year to year, depending on how active large scale cloud activity is.
That is not the original quote… but tell me if you think the underlying logic is BS
I didn’t read the whole thread, so maybe it was already mentioned, but I heard on NPR just yesterday a similar propaganda assault on skeptics.
The guy interviewed was a self proclaimed communications specialist and his points were roughly:
-climate scientists are bad at communications- that’s what really feeds the skeptics. It’s all a misunderstanding.
-it’s no longer global warming or climate change, it’s now “climate crisis”,
-the term “climate change” was apparently invented by the Republican polster Frank Lutz in 2004 or 2006 to make it seem more “natural” and less urgent.
-record snow and cold is a sign of “climate crisis”.
-the term global warming should not be taken literally.
– he also brought up tobacco and other special interest.
I screamed at the radio. This was such brazen propaganda.
Frank Lutz? what about IPCC?
Bad communicators? what about AL Gore and his film? What about the constant assault on the sense of human pity through the images of drowning polar bears and hurricanes?
This is definitely a coordinated effort to save their agenda.
Robert (12:55:35)
If you guys notice, I don’t put my last name on stuff either… but one would be amiss to think that the road only runs one-way
I’m sure Lindzen, Christy and Spencer – just to name a few – have received plenty of hate-mail too
Unfortunately the consequences for this debate have become apocalyptic for both sides. “You’re killing my grandkids” vs. “I won’t be able to heat my house next winter”
Responsible parties on both sides need to make a concerted effort to turn down the volume – and I *DO* consider Anthony to be a responsible party… so lets try and keep it civil here. Please.
Dawn Watson (03:58:56) : …As a country (UK) we have some serious energy decisions to make…
Dawn, that’s precisely why we need to clear out the mess in Climate Science… because the c**p science currently doing the rounds is wasting horrendous quantities of time and effort, and is only too capable of making useless, dangerous energy decisions. We need the fraud and ignorance cleared out of science. For this we need open-source science, free the data, free the methodology, free the debate. We need to take pride in research as a public service.
Take tidal energy. Locally to me the government wants to push through big barrage ideas that are expensive and inefficient. They get big business backing. But the future for tidal energy is small devices that are still in the hands of small-time inventors. IMHO.
Take nuclear energy (“normal” kind). The waste problem is still unsolved. Backhanders are foisting unwanted “solutions” on people. Yet LENR (the name-change already tells the story) might solve the current waste problem as well as the future energy problem – if research were supported.
Take Illinois coal. Mine that coal for uranium: enough to run two reactors for every one coal plant.
There are no doubt lots more possibilities currently scoffed at by the likes of Nature magazine – because they offend the current scientific paradigms.
“First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you; then you win.”
Gandhi
I think some of you missed the point of the smoking jab, which would be that tobacco companies have paid for loads of studies over the years to try to prove that their products aren’t dangerous, or that they aren’t nearly as dangerous as claimed, all in the name of making a profit.
The parallel would be that bad science is being used to distract people away from real pollutants like mercury, uranium, benzene, etc. and on to an element which is one of the base elements required for life, and the creation of a market for “trading” said element as a commodity, all in the name of making a profit.
But arguing with a smoker is like trying to argue with a junkie, so I’ll shut up.
So, it seems the pro-AGW side has turned to Psy-Ops now that their Sci-Ops have failed.
N+36,3762,14 hits on this blog says this new strategy is a FAIL.
Go Anthony!
Anthony
In his attacks on skeptics, Sachs joins Pachauri and the B-grade-acting CRU director Prof Liss. No mention is made of skeptics arguments, no attempt is made to refute them. Their aim is not to refute but to discredit. Maybe it because the positions taken by AGW proponents are so shaky that slander, smearing and ad hominem slurs are the only avenues they have left.
Particularly galling is the implication that skeptics are mercenaries for evil industries. Given your openness, integrity and even-handedness, that is highly insulting. Its not the skeptics who have been bought. Men like yourself and Spencer are not rice-bowl scientists. That possibility, however, can be leveled at some Climate Change scientists:
http://www.herkinderkin.com/2010/02/climate-change-rice-bowl-science/
Keep blogging, Mr Watts. The world will keep reading.