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.
tune-in,
“it’s no longer global warming or climate change, it’s now “climate crisis”
A sign of desperation. First we were urged to fight global warming, and when that proved to be a lie, we were extolled to fight climate change. Now that the number of true believers are disappearing faster than Al Gore’s glaciers, they bring in the fastest, sharpest PR mind to conjure up the final label on which to hang their phony junkscience; a concept that is so singularly terrifying that it will galvanise the global masses into crying out for salvation.
But after “climate crisis”, there’s nowhere left to go. Maybe “climate catastrophe”, but that sounds too far fetched even for the most evangelical of converts.
Robert,
“I would urge anyone to think twice before exposing themselves and their families to that kind of rage.”
Years ago the Australian passion was “pomie bashing.” Now it seems they’ve found someone else to bash instead of us old poms.
Another God-awful UK press attack piece on sceptics, this time from a decidedly colourful historian.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article7036900.ece
badmedicine (12:37:08) :
Anthony – I must agree with Andrew W (12:01:01). Would you really defend that list of 75? Really?
That’s, unfortunately, the risk of summary lists like that. I am personally skeptical of some of the claims in there as I am unfamiliar with them and, just going off the odds, there’s probably *at least* one in there that is a little flaky… much like claims of drowning polar bears, disappearing glaciers in India, etc
So what would that mean… that the entire document should be junked? That one should look skeptically at compendiums of supposedly solid science? That one should junk it all because of one bad assertion? Or that one should gloss over the bad points because, en masse, it is mostly right and we should trumpet it all as solid science?
A life long friend of mine (we went to grade school together) recently retired, as a full professor of Pediatrics, and Behavioral Psychology from the University of Miami. He’s actually an expert on Epidemiology; and also the learning processes of Retarded Children (so’s his wife who is his equal in thoise fields)
At that Institution he rubbed shoulders daily with the medical school faculty.
Regarding the issue of tobacco and lung cancer; he puts it this way;-
“There’s a body of scientific evidence that tobacco smoking causes Lung Cancer. There’s also a body of scientific evidence, that sex causes children.
It’s just that the tobacco evidence is much better.”
Don’t sweat it Anthony – not only is this the last gasp of AGW alarmists, it is the last gasp of “old media” as well. I suspect your readership is now approaching that of the Guardian, if not exceeding it.
@NickB.
I agree, and I have some angry and intemperate comments on my conscience, too. A little story:
I was on a climate blog the other day (“The Science of Doom”; http://scienceofdoom.com/) and I asked something to the effect of “The denialists say this, and I’m not sure what the science is.” Do you know what happened, on this very AGW-is-real website? They blocked it! I was referred to the “etiquette” file:
“Peoplewhodontagreeus-ists – we all know the words. Again, no thanks. Usually these words are created as insults. What’s the point? We are looking into the pros and cons of the science. Join a tribe or a church.”
Now that made me feel about three inches tall. That blogger promotes a civil discussion, and he does so without respect to whether his friends or his critics are the targets.
Just a pleasant story of somebody showing some real integrity. It is possible, despite our differences.
“Vincent (13:41:24) :
[…]
But after “climate crisis”, there’s nowhere left to go.”
Climate SNAFU?
Robert (14:17:44)
“The denialists say this”
Hello Robert
Can you please provide us with your thoughts on what is that said “denialists” deny?
The Guardian’s average daily circulation July to December 2009 was 313,026 (AdInfo). This represents 13.9% share of the UK’s quality daily press circulation.
According to its own editor, Peter Preston, The Guardian’s circulation dropped 14.8% in 2009, a much greater decline than other UK qualities which fell about 9.2% in the same period.
Why? Because people are finding reputable and interesting sources of information elsewhere – i.e. from blogs like this. It is hardly surprising
The Guardian is haemorrhaging readers given the Sachs article we are discussing here!
As Director of the UN Millenium Development Project and its MDGs, Sachs also promoted a global carbon tax in order to redistribute global income.
See: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/DoubleStandard.htm#propaganda
Tom, you need to read Dr. Spencer’s post a bit more carefully. His post did NOT address satellite data. There was NO inference that Dr. Phil Jones’ ground data is in accord with the satellite data.
Dr. Spencer used raw data from the International Surface Hourly (ISH) Dataset. That data is a super-set of the other ground temperature data sets.
You have mis-characterized Dr. Spencer as having said Dr. Jones’ surface data set agrees with the satellite record. The only think Dr. Spencer said is that the raw data of the ground stations he analyzed correlated well with Dr. Jones’ records. His analysis did not address UHI or any other biasing of Dr. Jones’ data, or the divergence of the satellite record and the surface temperature record.
NickB
True but overconsumption might be:
exhibit a) when it’s cheaper to buy a new printer than ink for the old one. In 1000 years time they’ll dig down to our level and call it the age of beige and black plastic.
exhibit b) I don’t know if it’s just where I live but in the last five years i can’t buy anything that will last for very long: Life becomes a continual struggle fixing the house against planned obsolescence. We are all scouring the car boot sales for classic furniture, cast iron radiators etc, old brass valves etc because things used to be built to last.
What i don’t understand though is what resources are we supposed to be running out of? And who the hell might we be keeping them for? Is it all just an excuse to borrow my stuff? The fact is that we create new resources all the time. Whoever dreamt about plastics before they were invented? And now we can make it out of silage and use the old stuff for road surfacing. I’ve recently seen a tv programme about the wonderful things they can now make out of seaweed: I can’t see us running short of that. I used to think i was a pessimist until i read some of these blogs but now i realize i’m an optimist. But not so much that i think the UK actually has the money for any nuclear programme regardless of it’s plans.
Interesting isn’t it that just about the time a whole new crew of trolls show up here and Mr. Sachs writes his article – we have a brand new “climate change agency” operating out of DoC,
Coincidence??
Blasting free-market Wall Street Journal is odd considering Sach’s role (shock therapy), probably with George Soros (did you know Soros is an “adviser” at the Earth Institute, along with Pachauri?) in the devaluation/profit taking off the Russian ruble in 1998? Obama has okayed a $2 billion grant to Brazil for off-shore drilling. Soros made a bundle off that last August. Time to take a look at Dr. Jeffrey D. Sachs’ finances.
Herman L., you said: “Anthony, if you want to turn a believer in AGW like me into a skeptic: here’s your chance. What are those “tough questions?” Can I get a list?”
I have worked in alternative energy since 1979, focused on methane mitigation from manure and industrial wastewater treatment. I’ve won awards from the UK and US governments for this work. My belief in climate change was a primary motivator.
I’ll kick this off…the science of climate change is incredibly complex, involving vast quantities of gases, liquids, and solids. Climatologists have made a mistake by developing a “dose-response” relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature, ignoring huge inputs such as solar variation. Google the term “Maunder Minimum” for example, this was related to a mini-ice age.
I recently queried my astronomy professor (emeritus) at the University of Illinois/Urbana about the ongoing solar minimum we have experienced, and he replied to me:
“To the question — i have NO idea, and neither does anybody else at this
point. the sun has been extremely quiet since the end of the last cycle,
unusually so, so one cannot rule out a new extended minimum, yet the
cycle could just be delayed — it’s too early to tell. The people who
thought they could predict this one seem to have failed, but all we can do
for now is to wait it out. I do not think climate models know quite what
to do with solar activity, but that’s just an opinion. One problem is how
this all factors into the politics of global warming.”
Summary: climate science is NOT settled, there is only a consensus in a very small slice of the scientific community, and that group is dissolving day by day. Astrophysicists, geologists and others are just now starting to weigh in.
“Hello Robert
Can you please provide us with your thoughts on what is that said “denialists” deny?”
Did you read the part where I was impressed and humbled by the argument that those kinds of labels are rude and counterproductive?
A short answer would be “they deny the theory of AGW.” But the real significance of all these “ist” labels — denialist, alarmist, believer, warmist, etc. — is to try and define people as ideological (as opposed to “our” views, which are reasonable and practical.)
They ramp up the conflict and persuade nobody. I invite you to join me in swearing off all of them.
Robert (14:17:44) : “The denialists say this, and I’m not sure what the science is.”
Robert, I have a simple question to ask… did anyone in your family give the ultimate sacrifice, so you could enjoy exercising your freedom of speech to toss around loaded words like Denialist?
Robert (12:55:35) : “…I would urge anyone to think twice before exposing themselves and their families to that kind of rage.”
Jim Hansen said the following “…In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature. …” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/climatechange.carbonemissions
Robert, at “Real Climate” their forums have discussed criminal trials like the ones held in Nuremberg after WW2 for “skeptics” of climate change. At one time, when I still visited there, they discussed making lists of posters on sites like this one, so that “we” could be rounded up and prosecuted for our crimes against humanity.
Those comments were meant to silence any one who was a skeptic. To install fear in people, so they wont ask the *wrong* questions. Those comments, where designed to remove peoples freedom of speech.
It turned me into a skeptic willing to stand up and sign my name.
Jack H Barnes Jr.
I am a founder & CEO of a small mining company, so make sure you put me on your mining list.
From Australia:
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/greens-take-on-sceptics-20100220-omrw.html
I think the Guardian’s article–as horrible as it was–is just the beginning.
FergalR (13:58:56) :
Another God-awful UK press attack piece on sceptics, this time from a decidedly colourful historian.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article7036900.ece
I am just stunned at how many subjects on which this article manages to touch. All I can say, for each, is… follow the money.
JamesG (14:48:03)
I read an interesting post on PlanetGreen.com a while back talking about mining landfills for recyclables. The fact of the matter is that if we really do start running our of stuff – like oil – prices will start to rise and *that* will lead to all sorts of innovation. Some day the prices could well be worth someone going in and mining landfills for all those recyclables that get put into the wrong bin… for now, in some cases at least, we spend more on recycling than we get from the end product. I’m not saying we shouldn’t recycle… just sayin’
What the Greens are allegedly trying to do here is to artificially cause that to happen prematurely (sorry, but the 5th grader in me just chuckled at the thought of “premature innovation”, do they have a pill for that?). Where was I? Oh yeah, so the real question is will it work?
I hate to bring up smoking again, or drinking… but here in the states every few years there are new taxes levied against tobacco and alcohol, allegedly to keep people from falling into addiction or to convince them to quit… but all it really does is lift money out of the pockets of people who have decided to partake in these legal activities. Another way to put it is that they are profiting from people’s addictions.
I am much of the mindset that people are addicted to tobacco or alcohol in many of the same ways as they are to oil for transportation, and cheap electricity from coal… and maybe even planned obsolescence in cheap products. anything, western society has demonstrated quite clearly that we have no idea how to deal with addiction
Arbitrarily raising prices on people who have no control over what cars are available, what power plants produce electricity, or what products are on their shelves is not the right way to go about it. It is, IMO, fundamentally unfair
Sorry if that was a ramble
Strength and honour Anthony – you have those qualities and great integrity above all, they don’t. The Guardian has become the catspaw Pravda both of our government and of the warmist last stand. It was once a voice of freedom against oppression and irrationality but has now become The Tyrant’s Friend, The People’s Foe. They will never recover their reputation.
The Ghost of Climate Change Past
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/22/climate-change-sceptics
Do climate change sceptics give skepticism a bad name? by Adam Corner.
Dr. Corner is an expert on climate change. He is a research associate at Cardiff University whose interests include the PSYCHOLOGY OF COMMUNICATING CLIMATE CHANGE. He states the following in his article:
“Recent climate scepticism has been characterised by a visceral mistrust of science, scientific institutions and scientific governance. Never mind that the case for climate change has been painstakingly pieced together over decades – climate change sceptics are busy writing it off on the basis of a few inconsistencies.”
After this as usual, unbacked-up perfunctory drivel, he breaks into the real subject of his story, namely the etymology of the word skeptic and how it has been hijacked by the evil Climate Change Deniers. He cites a British expert on skepticism, from the organization “UK Skeptics”, John Jackson:
“Terms like “climate change sceptic” are very damaging to skepticism (quoth Jackson) – basically because this is not what scepticism is. We often get people calling us, referring to themselves as climate sceptics, but we argue with them. We accept global warming because the evidence is overwhelming.”
Dr. Corner goes on:
“With trust in climate change and climate science rapidly dwindling, statements such as these could become incredibly powerful. Here are groups of intelligent, rational, scientifically literate, independent and skeptical thinkers, directly contradicting the view of the so-called climate sceptics. Debate continues about whether “denier” is an appropriate term for those who oppose the climate science consensus. But it seems clear that “sceptic” is no better – the sceptics themselves reject the climate contrarians’ claim to their title.”
Yes, thanks for the existence of Mr. Jackson et al.
Since Dr. Corner cited Mr. Jackson in his article, I wished to find out more about UK Skeptics. After all it represents “groups of intelligent, rational, scientifically literate, independent and skeptical thinkers, directly contradicting the view of the so-called climate sceptics.” I visited their website and found the following:
UK-Skeptics is a UK registered not-for-profit educational organization (No: 05819701) which is administered by director John Jackson and non-executive directors Dr. Wendy Cousins and Dr. Jason Braithwaite.
Ok, So three is a group, right?! Especially if two in the group are Ph.D.’s. I noticed two blog postings for February with three comments on one. Quite an active blog-roll. I dig deeper…..
On their website, UK Skeptics define skepticism as:
Skepticism is a method of assessing claims. It is a form of critical inquiry which can be used positively: in business; by consumers; in the defence against being defrauded or scammed; as an intellectual exercise; and in increasing one’s knowledge and awareness of reality in general.
The idea is to look beyond claims, beliefs and opinions, which are often accepted at face value, and look at whether the evidence actually supports such claims. This approach also makes skepticism a valuable thinking tool where opposing or contradictory claims are made for the same issue.
Sounds good, so far. So, what are these skeptics skeptical of? Let us look at the introduction for the UK Skeptic’s PARANORMAL CONFERENCE 2009 from their web site.
The UK-Skeptics conference 2009 will take place at Muncaster Castle in Cumbria during the weekend 18th – 20th September. Muncaster Castle is a fabulous location on the west coast where a lot of research has been done into HAUNTING EXPERIENCES and so serves as an excellent backdrop for a conference examining the topics of paranormal and anomalous experiences.
The aim of the conference is to take a BALANCED VIEW OF PARAPSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES and we will be getting talks from all perspectives (not only from skeptics) in the hope of increasing understanding of the issues and generating healthy debate in a friendly manner with those on all sides of the Paranormal debate.
O.K. so they are skeptical of paranormal activity but are willing to listen respectfully to the other side? But wait it gets better:
I was unable to find any information on the expertise of Mr. Jackson. His associates, Dr.’s Braithwaite and Cousins, provided their background of expertise for this recent Paranormal conference.
Dr Jason Braithwaite is a Senior Research Fellow at the Behavioural Brain Sciences Centre, University of Birmingham. His mainstream research interests are the visual cognitive neurosciences, more specifically – visual selective attention, memory and awareness. He publishes widely in top international peer-reviewed journals in the field of visual cognition. Dr Braithwaite has also published studies investigating aspects of hallucination and anomalous cognition including Apparitions / Hauntings, the Out-of-Body Experience and Near-Death Experiences.
Dr Wendy Cousins is a psychologist and university lecturer with research interests in health and social care provision. Her doctoral work at Queens University Belfast was on the topic of health and social services complaints, although she prefers to describe herself as having a PhD in Complaining! Currently carrying out research on epilepsy care, she has a growing interest in altered states of consciousness, such as hypnosis and sleep. She is an Honorary Associate of the Centre for Research on Consciousness and Anomalous Psychology at Lund University in Sweden. Outside of work she is fascinated by the history of Psychical Research.
So Mr. Jackson and his organization, UK Skeptics, as cited by Dr. Corner as unassailable experts on skepticism. They are certainly skeptical as to the existence of ghosts, people with paranormal abilities or out of body experiences. They are not skeptical, however, about AGW, after all, the “evidence is overwhelming.”
In other words:
Ghosts=probably not, but lets look into it.
Climate change skepticism=no way.
This would mean that people like Dr.’s John Christie and Wil Happer are cranks and flat earthers because they are, in turn, defined by him as “Climate Change Skeptics.” They are, in Dr. Corner’s world, more delusional than people who believe in ghosts. Lets listen rather to this group of “intelligent, rational, scientifically literate, independent and skeptical thinkers.”
Nice piece of Bloggin’ Dr. Corner. Maybe you could ask Roger Ravelle’s Ghost if he still believes in Climate Change?
This goes to show what passes for journalism at the Guardian. Anthony you really shouldn’t pay them the slightest notice.
Thanks for all you do,
Rick D.
Nick B. (14:06:57) “…one should junk it all because of one bad assertion?”
Well, no, of course not. But I was agreeing with Andrew W that “…there’s almost nothing on that list that’s correct”. (Or, if correct, then irrelevant to the argument, I would qualify.)
You and I apparently disagree. I was wondering if Anthony would defend the list.
Robert
Hang in there!
________________________
Everyone Else
Lighten Up! One battle does not a war make.