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.
I see Thomas Friedman in the NYT has joined the “slime brigade”. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html
“The climate-science community .. knew it was up against formidable forces — from the oil and coal companies that finance the studies skeptical of climate change to conservatives who hate anything that will lead to more government regulations to the Chamber of Commerce that will resist any energy taxes. ”
Bit of an emotive reply by Antony, understandable BUT…….
Slimy it is, Anthony.
But remember, they only “slime” those who they fear.
And it is clear that they fear you and the truth.
Keep up the good work.
I am mildly surprised to find no reference in the preceding 422 comments to “Yellow Journalism” or the “Yellow Press”. I think these terms aptly describe the state of science reporting in the MSM.
“…the term is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion, such as systematic political bias. Yellow journalism can also be the practice of over-dramatizing events.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism.
I suggest that one reason for this attitude among writers for the so-called ‘flag-ship’ press is simply their ignorance. How many journalists have a thorough grounding in science? Over the years I have observed and even talked to journalists for the Oz media and found it virtually impossible to communicate on any scientific matter because of the profound depth of their ignorance and shallowness of their perceptions, no matter how I tried to explain matters in lay terms. CP Snow’s ‘Two Cultures’ was never more in evidence.
What I am most surprised and downright disgusted by is the complete lack of integrity of people like Sachs who declare association with a University (in his case, Columbia U). So much for seeking truth or whatever is the function of such august institutions.
“jackhbarnesjr (15:30:09) :
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?”
I have two words for you: reading comprehension. There are classes starting in your area soon!
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”
Do you hear rage there? I don’t. He’s talking about prosecuting people for deceiving the public and endangering lives as a result. It’s very different from threatening to gang-rape somebody’s children.
Of course, who is a worse offender isn’t the point; the point is that I and many others have no interest in receiving e-mails like that, and so we maintain our privacy online.
“It turned me into a skeptic willing to stand up and sign my name.”
Of course, part of the point of skepticism is supposed to be eschewing arguments from authority, such that it shouldn’t matter who you are, if your reasoning and evidence is sound. I can only think that the desire to ferret out people’s names has to do with the desire to intimidate and silence critics of the anti-AGW point of view. Some skeptics seem surprisingly intolerant of skepticism when they are on the receiving end of it.
By the way, I have a few questions I like to ask self-identified skeptics. Nothing hard; no trick questions, but it helps me understand what kind of a skeptic you are:
1. What do you think are the three best arguments in favor of the theory of AGW?
2. If you are in error in rejecting the theory, what kind of evidence would make you think you were in error?
3. If you are in error, and AGW is a big problem, how would you suggest that society address it?
Oops, my previous post read:
“N+36,3762,14 hits on this blog says this new strategy is a FAIL.”
The number should have been n+36,762,141.
But I return to find the hit counter at 36,779,789. That’s over 17,500 hits in just a few hours. Whoa! This place is jumping!
Pascvaks (15:50:16) :
“…One battle does not a war make.”
_____________________
A point of clarification:
The only thing I want to win is the truth. I don’t think I’ve heard that yet about “AGW”; I’m very skeptical. There are just too many WallStreeters” and politicians jumping around trying to get their hands in my pocket to make me think this is a human and CO2 nightmare. I’m not skeptical of Science but I do think many “scientists” have sold their souls and are just backing the current fad. And if and when it turns out that AGW is real and true, I want to elect the boneheaded politicians I want to fix it –the current crop is not up to fixing anything. If Leif and Robert are a couple of tough, thickheaded, Scientists who rarely agree with anyone that’s GREAT by me. And this nonsense about tell us who you are and where you live and work is insane. For those who think that what happened in Germany during the 1930’s couldn’t happen here, I hate to pop your bubble, but that just ain’t true. China now sits in the catbird seat we sat in after WWI.
Anthony,
You say:
“The claims made that skeptics are connected to tobacco companies is ludicrous.”
That’s not an entirely true statement. You should qualify that statement with “some”. Some prominent skeptics have had no connection with tobacco PR front groups, some have. Given that you detest the tobacco lobby I would urge you to read Naomi and Erik’s book. And again, given that you care so passionately about this subject I would urge you to dissociate yourself with the Heartland Institute who have in their past denied links between cancer and human health.
I’m sorry, but you seem to have been extremely naive in your choice of associations.
Andrew W (12:01:01) there are a number of summary lists in addition to those 75 that Anthony pointed you to.
First you need a lesson in science from a master of science.
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/02/19/cargo-cult-science-a-lesson-from-richard-feynman-for-scientists-of-today-to-learn
Now show the evidence FOR the alleged AGW hypothesis. Science is based upon the idea of those who support a hypothesis to show the evidence. Show it or shut up.
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/02/16/show-the-evidence-for-anthropomorphic-global-warming-or-shut-the-frig-up-with-all-the-claims
Oh, make sure data collection is done properly.
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/02/16/for-the-sake-of-scientific-integrity-we-must-abandon-filling-in-missing-data-with-fictitious-invented-data
Oops, ensure your bias is eliminated rather than put into the data.
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/21/man-made-global-warming-climate-change-caused-by-human-bias
Alternative Hypothesis Are Out There: The Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory.
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/01/13/ferenc-miskolczi%e2%80%99s-saturated-greenhouse-effect-theory-c02-cannot-cause-any-more-global-warming
Of course the Sun Sol can’t have anything to due with the weather/climate.
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/20/the-constant-and-never-changing-sun-cant-influence-climate-on-earth
Make sure your Warming Cause wasn’t started by Darth Strong.
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/18/its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-only-one-earth-under-the-new-world-order-based-upon-false-science-brought-to-you-by-maurice-darth-strong
Deal with real problems rather than fake C02 fears.
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/17/rather-than-venting-on-the-imagined-dangers-of-co2-an-essential-plant-nutrient-how-about-doing-something-real-about-global-poverty
Make sure those who propose the AGW hypothesis aren’t criminal fraudsters with an intent to lie as the man who said this does: “In the United States of America, unfortunately we [alarmists] still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate [for the ends to justify the means and thus] to have an over-representation of factual presentations [aka exaggerate aka lie aka ignore counter evidence aka commit fraud] on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore in an interview.”
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/17/there-is-a-100-chance-that-al-gore-will-get-it-wrong-again-and-again-and-again-since-he-intentionally-exaggerates-lies-and-distorts-the-science-to-promote-his-vested-business-interests-in-blood
Gore’s Bloody Carbon Credits.
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/16/blood-and-gore-maximize-green-profits-at-all-costs-including-goring-science-integrity-and-extracting-blood-and-taxes-from-the-developed-and-developing-world
Deprogram your brain from the political green agenda.
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/13/if-there-has-been-climate-change-for-four-billion-years-why-are-you-against-it-now
The Sun Sets on the alleged AGW hypothesis.
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/13/the-power-of-belief-and-trust-and-mass-propaganda-are-the-greatest-challenge-in-continuing-the-scientific-enlightenment
Learn to engage in actual debate rather than in ad homenem personal attacks.
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/13/two-approaches-to-debate-and-free-public-speech-prevent-it-or-seek-it-out-and-engage
Listen to what the skeptical scientists have to say and learn baby learn.
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/11/professor-fred-stinger-vs-bob-watson-on-agw-hypothesis
Don’t support corrupted alleged scientists who distort data in an attempt to get their papers accepted as reflecting reality when it’s actually just fraud. Heck, we learned that in grade 10 science class in high school.
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/08/it-was-a-trick
Nature rules the wasteland that is Earth. Man is but a flea on her back.
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/07/nature-falsifies-the-mann-made-global-warming-climate-change-hypothesis
There is wisdom in those skeptical scientists.
http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/climate-change-statement-of-dr-william-happer-before-the-senate-environment-and-public-works-committee
Now we’re done with some of the preliminaries we’ll get to the two lists.
Climate Change is Natural: 100 Reasons Why
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/15/climate-change-is-natural-100-reasons-why
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 2009 Report
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/06/03/nongovernmental-international-panel-on-climate-change-nipcc-2009-report
Hope that helps you on your path to knowledge about how the alleged AGW hypothesis doesn’t hold water.
pwl
http://www.PathsToKnowledge.NET
Is this a cover-up? I mean his hair – it looks like he is wearing a wig.
Robert (15:28:05) :
“they deny the theory of AGW.”
Can you describe the “theory of AGW”? I am familiar with the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 concentrations can effect Earth’s temperature, and give this hypothesis some credence. I am familiar with the hypothesis that human activities can impact the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and give this hypothesis some credence. I am also familiar with various temperature data sets that indicate that warming has occurred at various points during the current interglacial period, including since the last little ice age. I accept the possibility that some portion of the warming that has occurred since the last little ice age may have been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Does the “theory of AGW” you speak of ascribe a specific degree of causality between the increase in temperature since the last little ice age and increases anthropogenic CO2 emissions, e.g. if I thought the warming was 50% anthropogenic and 50% natural, would I still be a denialist? Does the “theory of AGW” you speak of also require that I accept future predictions of the likely impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, e.g. must I accept that these impacts will be at least X degrees by year Y in order to not be a denialist?
Would you be willing to agree that human’s current understanding of Earth’s climate system is rudimentary at best?
“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.)”
I began using the Warmist label because it helped to counteract efforts to switch the argument from “global warming” to “climate change” and now “climate crisis”. It really wasn’t intended to define people as ideological, but rather to prevent efforts to shift the debate to nebulous grounds.
“They ramp up the conflict and persuade nobody.”
While it is true that these labels have helped ramp up the conflict, the use of denier has actually been reasonably effective in persuading fence-sitters to become skeptics and skeptics to become more so.
“I invite you to join me in swearing off all of them.”
A noble effort, and one I wish I could support, but unfortunately, as long as efforts continue to obscure the debate by using phrases like “climate change” and “climate crisis”, it is prudent to continue using the “Warmist” label in order to be sure the public remembers what it is that we are arguing about.
CRS, Dr.P.H. (15:24:47) :
…
I don’t know about astrophysicists, but I think climate science never had geologists’ full support. In Australia, the two leading climate sceptics, Ian Plimer and Bob Carter, are both geologists.
Geology is a fairly well settled scientific discipline. They already had on the record massive ups and downs in temperature and CO2 levels in Earth history when the new kids on the block (climatologists) barged in with their ‘unprecedented’ nonsense. The problem is that so far geologists are speaking as individual scientists, and hence outside their area of expertise. It would be good to hear what geology as a scientific discipline has to say about climate change. That means leading geological institutions will have to join the fray… if they could be nudged.
Mr. J. D. Sachs, by his lack of integrity as shown is his essay, weakens further an already shaky CACGW* agenda. The position taken by Sachs, as students of logic know, is the weakest of all logical positions.
Why has the CACGW* agenda recently been in retreat on many major fronts? Read Sachs essay. It shows the cause of the CACGW* retreat better than any words of an independent rational thinker (aka “skeptic”) could.
* CACGW = Catastrophic Anthropogenic Carbon-caused Global Warming
!!! NOTE to Anthony, again I say that this kind of thing is strong evidence that you are a MSM player (of the blog based variety). : )
John
“Can you describe the “theory of AGW”?”
Your description is fine:
“I am familiar with the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 concentrations can effect Earth’s temperature, and give this hypothesis some credence. I am familiar with the hypothesis that human activities can impact the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and give this hypothesis some credence. I am also familiar with various temperature data sets that indicate that warming has occurred at various points during the current interglacial period, including since the last little ice age. I accept the possibility that some portion of the warming that has occurred since the last little ice age may have been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”
That’s AGW. That’s all it is. Most climate scientists would state the main points with more conviction, for example:
1. There is a warming trend (>99.9%)
2. CO2 levels are rising and humans are the cause (>99.9%)
3. CO2 and other GHG emissions, along with minor contributions from things like black soot and deforestion, are mostly responsible for the warming trend (>90%)
Among those that accept the theory of AGW, there are differing opinions as to how dangerous the warming is and how much of it we are likely to see in the short- to medium-term. But that goes beyond the theory of AGW, which is just what you’ve described.
“A noble effort, and one I wish I could support, but unfortunately, as long as efforts continue to obscure the debate by using phrases like “climate change” and “climate crisis”, it is prudent to continue using the “Warmist” label in order to be sure the public remembers what it is that we are arguing about.”
2009 tied for the second hottest year on record; 2010 so far is the hottest year ever. I think the public remembers.
[I am sure they are sweating it off while freezing to death]
””””Beth Cooper (01:46:56) : ‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe,’ . . . . ”””’
Beth,
Congrats on your comment. I have long loved that Carroll poem! In the back of my mind I was thinking for a while about working it a comment here on WUWT. It is nice to see other minds have similar ideas.
John
1. What do you think are the three best arguments in favor of the theory of AGW?
None. I don’t consider CO2 basic warming as part of AGW. It’s well understood physics that almost all skeptics accept. After that there’s really nothing but WAGs.
2. If you are in error in rejecting the theory, what kind of evidence would make you think you were in error?
I’ve never “rejected” any climate theory. I simply believe that the science is so poorly understood that all the various hypothesis are only slightly better than guesses. This includes many of the hypotheses put forward by other skeptics as well.
3. If you are in error, and AGW is a big problem, how would you suggest that society address it?
Wealth generation. A wealthier society will be able to handle any future problems better than a poor society. This may include whatever you mean by AGW or it may include cooler weather or maybe even the next glacial onset. It might also include asteroids, deadly viruses and super-volcanic eruptions.
SHX said:
“I don’t know about astrophysicists, but I think climate science never had geologists’ full support. In Australia, the two leading climate sceptics, Ian Plimer and Bob Carter, are both geologists.”
Cheers & thanks for the comments! I’m familiar with Plimer, the guy is stout!
Outside of dyed-in-the-wool climatologists, I’m hard pressed to name many disciplines that completely buy into the “coming catastrophe” GW scenario. Some oceanographers are outspoken about oceanic acidification, and they may have merit in their work, I’m still on the fence.
Regarding the coming end-of-earth etc., I am hearing loudest dissent from geologists, meteorologists, mathematicians, economists and physicists. Guys like Steve MacIntyre have my highest regard and are doing some excellent analysis!
Also, many posters on WUWT are wonderfully insightful, this is a great meeting-place of the minds!
This link is to an excellent talk given to CERN about the effects of cosmic rays upon climate, I highly recommend it to anyone.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
Robert (17:29:22) :
“3. CO2 and other GHG emissions, along with minor contributions from things like black soot and deforestion, are mostly responsible for the warming trend (>90%)”
We don’t understand how the sun works, we don’t understand how the clouds works, we barely understand how the oceans work and volcanic activity is a complete wild card. Don’t you think that a confidence level of “(>90%)” is a bit high given all that we don’t understand about Earth’s climate system?
“2009 tied for the second hottest year on record; 2010 so far is the hottest year ever.”
The hottest year ever? A bit of hyperbole there? Perhaps it would be more believable if you said, “the hottest year ever based on the 130 years of highly suspect surface temperature data we have on our 4,500,000,000 year old planet.”
“I think the public remembers.”
A reasonable portion of the public only remembers as far back as the last blizzard or heat wave, and right now that works in the skeptics’ favor.
Sigh! This is politics as usual in the UK. (I can’t vouch for any other country).
If in doubt, attack the individual, not the issue. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Dr Kelly case for example, it was the personal attacks on his integrity that did the damage. The same is happening today over the allegations that our illustrious PM is a bully. Don’t address the issue, just lambast those who say it. It is standard procedure for the spinmeisters that are behind most governments, and the PR guys that do the dirty work for others. It is a lot easier to denigrate your opponents than to enter into reasoned debate, and a lot easier for the lumpen proletariat to digest than a logical but perhaps complex discussion.
I fear that until one of the braver MSM comes up with a headline that says, “AGW Will Cost Every Man Woman and Child in the UK £XXX, Yet The Science Is Seriously Flawed”, this saga will run and run. Clinton was right about the economy. Most people only become concerned when it affects their pockets. Until the general public realise what this is going to cost them, both sides can vent their spleens to little effect. In other words, this is in the hands of the electorate, and regrettably we have every major party in the UK on the AGW bandwagon. The fringe parties will be the only beneficiaries, to the detriment of long-term political stability. We desperately need some bold and strong personalities in the political arena to demand that the science be properly and openly debated before we rush in like fools. It would be like going to war on faulty intelligence.
Ah hold on, didn’t that also happen in the not so distant past?
Robert, Herman.
Not once have you outlined a proof of runaway global warming by man made increased co2.
You dance well, skeptics do not have to prove to you anything, your job is to prove a simple hypothesis or point people to it.
If you are too lazy to read this this entire blog it’s myriad debates on causes and effects from a scientific point of view then attend to your own sloth.
If you are are so arrogant to demand an anti proof, then you need to go somewhere else. There are warmers and coolers in this debate.
If you say the AGW hypothesis is proven, then show it.
Look at the widget in the side bar. That sir is the rebuttal, there is no evidence of runaway global warming, which was the original line in the sand, now the wishy washy term climate change.
It is not a debate in semantics, philosophy or economics. Science, cause and effects, measured.
And On Topic I think it’s wrong to comment on Mr Sach’s rug, even if does look like a dead wombat perched on his head, snip away. (The first commenter made me spit my coffee larfin’).
Anthony,
I should be the most sceptical man on the planet.
Can you imagine finding a whole area of science that was missed and in doing so the great deal of theories we have for this missing science is incorrect.
Meanwhile all this incorrect science has been passed on from generation to generation through the school system.
This same system we created from NASA ,colleges and universities all willnot consider looking at any new science by an individual. It must be peer reviewed.
But who are the experts in a field that has not been researched before?
Mind you, waiting on answers that usually never came, allowed me to go further in this area that is quite massive. Rotation.
In order to even understand this area, takes a great deal of teaching basic geometry with mechanics and understanding molecular desities.
Densities change with rotation at different speeds.
I am so far advanced that going backward is like teaching kindergarden to physics who need to know step by slow step by slow step.
I hate tobacco, too. I do not have a personal history with it, since no one in my family smokes or has died of smoking. Nevertheless, I can’t stand the stuff. When I was dating, smoking would be a deal-breaker.
By the way, what exactly does that have to do with the climate? The Guardian really should get a clue. Of course there will be some skeptics who, for reasons unfathomable, like tobacco. So what? Some liberals are felons, too. Does that mean all liberals are felons?
Anthony, others have said it better, but the skeptic message is getting through the slime, now more than ever.
Someone should start a new organization: Climate Skeptics Against Tobacco. Except SKAT doesn’t sound so good.
Relax Anthony;
Dr. [Sachs] article is not worth the anxiety attack. If anyone reads his Bio and titles of his other articles, you can see why he is trying to re-ignite the alarmists.
He is the “left wing” social agenda guy!!!
What people haven’t figured out yet is that the UN is like King Minos, only different. Everything the UN touches turns to shi*. Show me a UN success story……of any kind!!!!!!
That said, reading the article, it is so obviousely “bloody minded” and clearly encapsulates the problems that occured with UEA, CRU and a large portion of the enviromental science world. What they haven’t figured is that they can write what ever they want. As soon as they want billions/trillions from everyone, that is when the big review will happen (as it did).
pman (16:57:38),
By your own criteria, the IPCC must promptly disassociate itself from the WWF, and anyone connected now or in the past with the WWF. The same goes for any other quango or NGO that has insinuated itself and its lobbyists into the UN, like Greenpeace and all similar NGOs [unelected, non-governmental organizations.]
WUWT is a privately owned site that takes no money from tobacco companies, oil companies, or George Soros. It is funded mostly by individual donations, along with some google ads, just like any other popular site.
The difference is that the IPCC is a militantly pro-AGW propaganda organ, funded with public tax money, and also funded by NGOs with a heavy AGW agenda. It is staffed by 100% political appointees who have their marching orders: inform individual countries that catastrophic AGW is an undeniable fact, in order to pave the way for what comes next. Scientific truth has nothing to do with the IPCC.
Their admitted plan is to require every company [and eventually every individual] that emits CO2 [“carbon” to the members of the world idiocracy] to purchase “carbon credits” as a hefty financial penalty for all CO2 emissions.
Those costs will be passed on to consumers in the form of much higher prices. Because as we know, companies don’t pay taxes, they collect taxes for the government.
Along with the much higher prices in store, individual income taxes and user fees will begin to ratchet up, while wages will remain relatively stagnant, resulting in an enormous transfer of wealth from individuals to the government. And it is all based on the false notion that a harmless trace gas is going to cause climate catastrophe.
The ultimate goal is the UN’s proposed World Tax, in reality to be paid only by the rich industrialized countries [primarily the G-8]; and collected and administered/doled out by the totally corrupt, unaccountable, audit-free, and opaque UN, to “developing” countries like Brazil, China, Russia and a hundred others.
The fact that China already owns a trillion dollars in U.S. financial assets means nothing. They will still be in the “developing” category according to the UN, and will receive billions more dollars every year, transferred from U.S. pockets to Chinese pockets.
Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who personally enriched himself in the Oil-For-Food scandal, worked tirelessly setting up the mechanism for his proposed World Tax — aimed directly at the wealth of the U.S. and the West. His successor, Ban Ki Moon, recently began promoting the same annual World Tax, equal to .7% of rich countries’ GDP. Anyone who believes that such a tax will remain at .7% is a card-carrying member of the idiocracy.
In the mean time, another heavy layer of bureaucracy, used to regulate and administer carbon credits and allowances, will be put on the backs of taxpayers in the U.S. and the West, as a prelude to relegating sovereignty to the UN.
So complaining about Heartland is ridiculous and petty, when the true danger is the confiscation of your assets by UN thugs, whose charter says nothing about it being a world government or tax collector.
We should be worrying about what matters, not issuing ad hominem innuendo regarding any minor contributions from energy companies which, unlike the UN, actually provide products that fill a need.
Sorry, that was King Midas, not Minos (of course)
[snip – it is not for you to judge who is a “true climate skeptic or not” – into the troll bin with you – take a one day timeout, you are wearing the moderators out]