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.
Roger Carr (23:48:50) :
(Anthony to me:) REPLY: You didn’t grow up within it. I did, I ask that you trust my ability to gauge my own surroundings. …
I did grow up within a smoke haze, Anthony; but that is not the point I would make, which is: You have created the most widely read and respected news site in history based on a healthy scepticism, yet appear to have abandoned this greatest strength on a side-issue in which you have a personal position.
Please do not allow this to become your Achilles heel. Nicotine is another book, and I have already asked once in this thread that it be left alone for fear it would dilute the real message.
The battle against the demons promoting catastrophic climate change has not yet been won. Our focus must remain fine; intense; and be eventually fatal to their cause.
REPLY: We’ll have to disagree on this one. The environment favored ear infections, I got them repeatedly. Tetracycline antibiotic is what killed my hearing. Smoking was the catalyst, not the cause. – A
_____________________
Roger,
Like Anthony I had numerous severe ear infections growing up in a smoking household – to the point of having a perforated ear-drum. My brothers suffered likewise. My 4 children, growing up in a smoke-free household, have never had a single ear infection (my youngest is nearly a teenager). That may be anecdotal, as is Anthony’s case, but this contention is backed up by scientific studies. Anthony is not making up an isolated argument, nor do you have any evidence that this is junk science. Hopefully our skepticism does not now lead to the immediate dismissal of ALL science. My personal understanding after reading the most recent study, is that the extra irritation from smoke causes more release of secretions in the inner which create a growth medium for bacteria, and hence, infections. Here are some links, ad the most recent study is from 2008. (Most are from the 1990s, when effects of second-hand tobacco smoke research was at its height.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080519110703.html
http://living.oneindia.in/health/science-study/2008/childhood-earinfection-
passive-smoking-210508.html
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9802/10/smoke.ear/Ilicali
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/otitis-media-000121.htm
OC, Keles N, Deger K, Savas I. Relationship of passive cigarette smoking to otitis media. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;125(7):758-762.
Stathis SL, O’Callaghan DM, Williams GM, Najman JM, Andersen MJ, Bor W. Maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy is an independent predictor for symptoms of middle ear disease at five years’ postdelivery. Pediatrics. 1999;104(2):e16.
Dawn
Thanks for your comment. I think you will agree that you came in all guns blazing and may have been surprised to find that we are not knuckle dragging neanderthals-there are some extremely qualified and knowlegable people here and many would sympathise with parts of what you say.
As regards politics and taking extreme positions (Greenpeace etc) I think that it is a serious impediment to tackling the energy problems. I had a very interesting conversation with a green party activist recently who had literally set out a table and put on it his various leaflets. I could agree with many of the things he said when he took local practical leaflets from the right hand side of the table, but then he started spouting the most extreme and indefensible policies liberally laced with inaccuracies when he moved to the left side of the table and picked up ‘national policy’ leaflets. I found these a complete turn off.
So at local level I had sympathy with the cause but at the national level I think they were positively alarming. Greenpeace and FOI are similar in many respects. If only they would do practical things such as those discussed in my last post they might find a different audience and actually help the environment.
I am certainly very happy to consider solar power/heat pumps/wind power but not when it is sold through commisioned salesmen and so end up paying three times more than its worth. Consequently I do feel that Greenpeace et al have a potential role in helping the public at a practical level by offering this sort of service instead of espousing ‘right on’ causes.
Hope you stop by again-its very useful to get other views but please don’t treat us all as little children who need lecturing, most of us are pretty intelligent people who are as concerned about things as you are, but we just have a different perspective.
Tonyb
Dawn,
While I would agree that winterizing homes might be a good idea, under Obama’s stimulus paln it cost over $57,000 per each home. This is what happens to our tax dollars when the government runs the program. And only a fraction of the homes are being winterized due to red tape requirements inserted in the stimulus bill by Pelosi.
Maybe people should winterize their homes themselves just like I did to save the cost of heating in the winter.
From the , the LA Times
“Who could forget the $5 billion in Obama administration stimulus money that was going to rapidly create nearly 90,000 green jobs across the country in these tough economic times and make so many thousands of homes all snuggy and warm and energy-efficient these very snowy days?
Well, a new report due out this morning will show the $5-billion program is so riddled with drafts that so far it’s weatherized only about 9,000 homes.
Based on the initial Obama-Biden program promise that it would create 87,000 new jobs its first year, that would be about 10 jobs for each home weatherized so far. Makes for pretty crowded doorways.”
For details go to:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/02/obama-stimulus-weatherization.html
This is an interesting website. Anthony, try searching for ‘Heartland Institute’ here:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/
You’ll find plenty of firm evidence that Heartland were involved in the tobacco deception. Given that you quite frankly state your detest for smoking and the dire effects of tobacco I would urge you to dissociate yourself with the Heartland institute. I only claim an association based on the fact that your document ‘Is the US Surface Temperature Record Reliable?’ was apparently published by the Heartland Institute.
REPLY: And again I point out that no scientific organizations have stepped up to ask the tough questions or to offer skeptical scientists and citizens a forum. Life is imperfect, you work with what is dealt you. Would Heartland be my first choice? No. I’ve made my objections known and I’ve never hidden the connection.
Also, the link you reference is Oreske’s, who has an agenda. Take a look at where she gets her funding. -A
Ryan Stephenson (02:47:01) :
That was a nice primer on the Guardian, Ryan. It’s appreciated. Thx.
Anthony,
I’m not certainly not accusing you of hiding your links to Heartland and it is good that you are open about it.
As for a forum for skeptical scientists and citizens, IMO, the peer reviewed literature is open to work published by skeptical scientists/citizenry that is of a sufficient quality. How else do you explain Lindzen and Choi for instance? What about standard literature? Mosher and Montford found publishers willing to publish their work.
You could have just produced your report under your own steam and made it available on the web as it currently is. That’s where I obtained it. Would you agree that that route would get less exposure outside of the blogosphere? Heartland has got the advantage of a decent PR budget to help promote it. I’m just speculating as to why you’d choose them. Could you elaborate on what influenced your decision? Who approached who? Also, would you consider ditching associations with Heartland given your strong personal convictions on smoking?
On Oreskes, AFAIK her agenda is that of a scientific historian and she’s funded via the normal routes for an academic. Again, don’t shoot the messenger for bringing unsavory news, history is against Heartland on this one.
Fred Singer also has a long history of working for tobacco interests and he is publishing on climatology with Christy and Douglas, for example. Why do established climatologists need Singer, if not for the techniques he learned working for tobacco denying the health effects of second-hand smoke?
pman, Zimmerman, and others who revel in ad hominem attacks against the messenger are as slimy as the Guardian.
Today’s demon isn’t tobacco, it is carbon. From the IPCC, through almost every university, to just about every TV station, newspaper and magazine, anyone who publicly states that carbon isn’t evil is treated like a leper. James Hansen wants the executives of coal companies imprisoned, which is more severe than what used to be suggested for tobacco execs.
If the government thinks tobacco is that bad, then it should make tobacco illegal. But politicians are every bit as addicted to the money tobacco brings in as smokers are to nicotine. So they allow the use of a dangerous substance in order to pocket the money it brings in, no matter how many people it kills.
Now, suppose a coal company offered you a stipend for doing some research. Would you turn them down out of moral courage and ethics? Or would you take their money? I think we know the answer to that question.
Dr Singer did nothing wrong. Thousands of people have done similar research, and I defy you to show one instance where a scientist is on record at the time as refusing their money on anti-smoking principles. Name one.
The fact that you attack the messenger is because you are incapable of showing any solid evidence that CO2 causes measurable global warming. That is why you engage in your hypocritical ad hominem attacks. It is you who lack principles and ethics.
Anthony has already told you the situation regarding Heartland, yet you continue to pester him. And implying that Dr Singer is not an established climatologist shows either your ignorance, or your mendacity. Is Pachauri, or Hansen, or Mann, or Jones, or Briffa an “established climatologist?” No. They are pretend climatologists riding the grant gravy train.
The mainstream media never give anything resembling equal time to the skeptical view — which is turning out to be the correct view regarding CAGW. If a smaller organization is willing to do what the lock-step media refuses to do, then there is no choice in the matter, and the fault is due to big media and their enablers.
Fred Singer did not deny “the health effects of second-hand smoke.” He wrote that the EPA’s report on the subject was full of exaggerations. Which it was.
This statement, in particular, is totally unverifiable…
“ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers.”
Is second hand smoke an irritant? Heck yeah!
Can it be harmful to human health? Almost certainly.
Is there any empirical evidence that second hand smoke is a Class A Carcinogen? No. For that matter, it’s not really possible to obtain true empirical evidence that tobacco use causes cancer, because you cannot perform a controlled experiment on humans. However, the statistical data are overwhelming. Tobacco use vastly increases the probability of cancer and a wide range of other adverse health effects in humans.
Are there at least some statistical data to support the claim that second hand smoke could be a carcinogen? Sure.
Why shouldn’t Singer have criticized the EPS’s findings?
This once again boils down to a skeptic using very measured scientific terminology in criticizing an exaggerated environmental alarmist report…
And then being demonized for their effort.
Fred Singer has been very consistent in pointing out the exaggerations of environmental alarmists across a broad spectrum of subjects.
Fred Singer is also one of the most distinguished atmospheric scientists in US history. From Wiki…
As far as having a “dog in the hunt”… My Mom’s death of a stroke in her early 50’s was probably smoking related. My brother-in-law’s death in his early 60’s from cancer was probably smoking related. The asthma that I have had since childhood might be related to second hand smoke exposure.
An aversion to alarmist exaggerations does not mean that someone denies the threats that aren’t exaggerated.
Smokey:
“…..and others who revel in ad hominem attacks…..”
Fabrication, ad hom:
“James Hansen wants the executives of coal companies imprisoned, which is more severe than what used to be suggested for tobacco execs.”
Ad hom:
“Is Pachauri, or Hansen, or Mann, or Jones, or Briffa an “established climatologist?” No. They are pretend climatologists riding the grant gravy train.”
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Meanwhile, Smokey, please explain where I have engaged in an ad hom attack against Anthony. Ad hom meaning “X is stupid therefore X is wrong” or some derivative of that logical flow. I have not said this. All I have done is point to a mutually agreed upon fact regarding Anthony and Heartland. Given that Anthony says he detests smoking, and I believe him, I thought it reasonable to seek clarification on his opinions on this matter. I have not said that Anthony is wrong because of this association in anyway, nor have I said that he’s wrong. Please read my posts more carefully.
Mark Zimmerman (12:12:00) ; Pman,; Dawn
“Fred Singer also has a long history of working for tobacco interests and he is publishing on climatology with Christy and Douglas, for example. Why do established climatologists need Singer, if not for the techniques he learned working for tobacco denying the health effects of second-hand smoke?”
—…—…—
Therefore, you are explicitly accusing the skeptical community of being “bribed” (er, receiving money from XYZ interest group and (changing) influencing our results to favor that interest group”) by money from (oil and spectil interst groups … True? Or False?
If True, then EXACTLY what money have “we” – all of us, including the 33,000 (plus) scientists, weathermen, and engineers and statisticians who have signed our names stating that AGW is NOT supported by the “science” and MUST be re-examined free of bias and political aims – received? WHAT DID I GET TO CHANGE MY MIND? (If YOU can show what money “I” have received, please let me (my wife!) know – since I’d (she) would like to spend it, and I (we) need to include it on our IRS forms….. If “I” have not received any money for our analysis of the facts and data, then admit YOU are lying about Mr. Watts.
If True, then you do ADMIT that YOU know “scientists” (and public figures) who WOULD change their research and results and data to influence the results to influence our world? (But only for the better, of course.)
Of course, since YOU are making this accusation (of bribery and deceit) against UNKNOWN scientists and UNKNOWN peer-reviewed “outside-the-ABCNNBCBS-Science-National Geographic-experts” then YOU must have some personal experience which scientists and people YOU DO KNOW who would do such a criminal and immoral thing … else YOU would not believe such a thing would happen and YOU would NOT be accusing unknowns of what YOUR know KNOWN associates (friends ?) actually would do!
If True (that YOU believe people would change “Science” for political gains, and since YOU are unable to show ANY money influencing the skeptical side … and since “I” can show 89 BILLION dollars being funded to the AGW community ONLY when they follow the AGW “bible” of lies and exaggerations, then the burden falls on YOU to show that the AGW warmists are NOT influenced by THEIR money , power, political goals, and economic worth of 1.3 trillion dollars in increased taxes.
But the AGW community will ONLY get that 1.3 trillion IF their schemes and lies are supported.
By you.
This man, Sachs, is from the left of the political spectrum that likes to have power over people. This is why he takes a low, dirty shot at WUWT because WUWT is raining on his global warming parade with its guilt filled message.
Global warmers like to use guilt over pollution and prosperity to gain power over people. WUWT opens the prison door of that guilt and people are able to walk away free from that guilt.
This rubs people like Sachs the wrong way. After all, how can he make all the people in the world live the way he wants them to live if he can’t manipulate them?!
pman (11:46:51) :
IMO, the peer reviewed literature is open to work published by skeptical scientists/citizenry that is of a sufficient quality.
Well, thanks for your stingy permission. Your generosity is truly overwhelming.
/sarc off/
Project Syndicate is a George Soros project – a non-profit that supplies articles for 300 or so newspapers. Sachs has written a number of articles for them. Sachs advocated free-trade as a remedy for Russia and Poland after the fall of the USSR. Russia struggled, Poland is doing quite well. Why the antagonism towards the WSJ? Why, if both countries followed Sachs’ “shock therapy”, is Russia struggling?
The Wall Street Journal documented the May 1998 “assault by financial speculators led by Soros” on the Russian ruble. Lots of people went hungry and didn’t get paid. Currency speculation is how Soros makes his money – a tad hypocritical from a man who wants an open society and lectures capitalists about putting the common good above their own interests. Hat tip to Peter Schweizer in Do As I Say (Not As I Do).
Sachs and Pachauri are advisers to the Asian Development Bank, Pachauri as head of TERI. Interesting how Sachs and others are promoting sustainability – an unproven “theory” based entirely on the unproven “theory” of AGW. http://www.nas.org Guess who is the delegate from the US to the Asian Development Bank? Tim Geithner
The UNEP is meeting in Bali as we speak. Considering Soros currency speculations in Thailand in Malaysia, I wonder if they’d be so fond of Dr. Sachs if they knew of his relationship/funding with/by Soros.
Watch for euro problems – Sachs assured the Times of India that the euro was fine, no worries on 2-8. Not according to Soros, as of yesterday, who doesn’t want any bailout for Greece. Who knows? Environmentalist Soros is against off-shore drilling here but his boy Obama gave $2 billion to Brazil for that very thing.
Soros Foundation guy Fraga became head of the Brazilian Central Bank in 1999. Their relationship with Petrobras? Soros relationship to Petrobras?
Dr. Sachs may be reached at sachs@columbia.edu He needs to be asked some very searching questions about his financial interests. How much is he paid for each article he writes for the Project Initiative, for example.
Major Sachs ‘offensive’ in the offing
Breaking the Climate Debate Logjam
http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v302/n3/full/scientificamerican0310-30.html
More offensive stuff, all in preparation I guess
Carbon Rock Lock
http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v302/n3/full/scientificamerican0310-17a.html
pman, no it ain’t. Been there done that. If you are researching something someone else is doing and you find something they didn’t find, AND they are friends with the editor of the journal you want to publish in, TRUST ME! You will NOT get published in that journal! Been burned by that! Journal shopping is the rule and who you know is the way to get published, as long as you agree with the editor of the journal and do not SCOOP him/her. So naive.
By the way, I recently just determine that my research was duplicated with a larger subject pool and they found what I found. That is way cool.
aMINO aCIDS iN mETEORITES (00:24:25) :
To be fair IMO, you have painted some of Mr. Sachs’ positions negatively without good cause.
ex: his solution for malaria in Africa—bed nets, and the development of medicines, no mention of the immediate solution DDT.
Sachs supports mosquito netting impregnated with DDT.
ex: his solution for jobs in America—on way: money from the government to GM to develop electric cars, “if” it that car can be done
GM claims it will repay all government loans by June. The GM VOLT extended range electric vehicle is an American engineering triumph that is revolutionizing transportation. It launches November.
ex: is for government subsidies for alternate fuels, says the free market is not the solution but it is a problem
Oil, gas, agriculture, utilities, etc. all get subsidies. The free market necessarily includes subsidies to launch new products/services beneficial to citizenry e.g. rural electrification.
ex: wants people to stop eating meat to save on feed crops used on animals, i.e, less meat eaten less crops needed to feed those animals, no mention of ending biofuel programs for the same purpose.
Lowering daily consumption of meat especially high in fats can reduce obesity/heart disease which contributes to massive healthcare costs in U.S.
However, the association of skeptics with tobacco is a low blow more typical of yellow journalism than a sophisticated university.
Indiana Bones
“Oil, gas, agriculture, utilities, etc. all get subsidies. The free market necessarily includes subsidies to launch new products/services beneficial to citizenry e.g. rural electrification.”
Possibly you could enlighten me as to what specific subsidies Oil and gas get today. The oil depletion allownce was discontinued many decades ago.
Here’s something I’ve posted repeatedly on a stock market site, SeekingAlpha:
I suggest that the gov’t. take over where Rex & Co. left off, by offering homeowners a premium in exchange for a share of future profits on the sale of the house. (Say 15% of the house’s current valuation in exchange for half the upside above its current market value.) This would buffer the effects of the current crunch on the homeowner, allowing him to make his mortgage payments and/or renegotiate his mortgage, while being a good long-term buy for the gov’t. It’s win/win.
Going further, I think the gov’t should offer to pay for home-improvement projects for home-owners, again in exchange for a share of future profits on the sale of the house. There are certain desirable home improvements that wouldn’t require skilled labor, such as adding fencing, home security, and earthquake protection. Millions could be hired to do these tasks after a bit of videotaped training.
This technique could also be used to fund purchase and installation of insulation, attic fans, south-side awnings, white-painted roofs, and heat pumps. The US needs to cut its energy consumption, and a little governmental nudging is OK to get us there.
These initiatives would stimulate lots of economic activity; upgrade the country’s housing stock; make life pleasanter for home-owners and their neighbors (who’d live in an upgraded neighborhood); reduce crime; and be a good investment for the gov’t. in the long run. They would also be politically popular. (assuming it would work).
———-
On Nov. 2, 2009, Business Week published A three-sentence version of my letter above.
Indiana Bones (18:12:11) :
To be fair IMO, you have painted some of Mr. Sachs’ positions negatively without good cause.
The cause was to emphasize his left political views. And also to make his political and environmental motivation clear. His Marxist viewpoints are too extensive for me to believe he just a nice guy. You are probably overestimating him. Although I do believe he does have some good intentions.
Sachs supports mosquito netting impregnated with DDT.
I’ll need a link to this.
If that is true why not just use DDT alone? There must be a reason.
GM claims it will repay all government loans by June.
Why did he single out GM? Why no other car company? It’s revealing that he did. It is probably because GM was seized by President Obama. Why was Government money needed in the first place? If they did not budget R & D then why save them from themselves? Is GM really going to pay it back? Shouldn’t GM just have been let to fail?
Oil, gas, agriculture, utilities, etc. all get subsidies.
Oil and gas? That’s new to me. Agriculture should not be getting subsidies. You are missing the point, the government should not be present in every day life. To advocate that it should be is socialism and Marxism. Both have no place in a free world.
I am pointing out that Jeffery Sachs is for control over people, his control, the U.N.s control, and anyone else he has approved. He is not for freedom. It appears he feels he knows how to run peoples lives better than they know how to themselves; he is condescending. And his softcore approach doesn’t make it any better. I think he is a passive aggressive. His Marxist views are extensive in his opinions, from top to bottom.
Lowering daily consumption of meat especially high in fats can reduce obesity/heart disease which contributes to massive healthcare costs in U.S.
Sachs argument for having less meat has nothing to do with the things you mention. He makes a ridiculous argument that cattle are consuming human food. They do not. But biofuels do! And the feed that cattle eat is paid for in the cost of the meat. No injustice is taking place. No humans are starving because cattle eat. But there are people starving because of biofuel programs. Why isn’t Sach’s advocating stopping all biofuel programs??
If Sachs thinks there is no more farmable land to grow more food for humans because growing feed for cattle is using it all up then I will add abject stupidity to the list of things I see in him.
However, the association of skeptics with tobacco…
His doing this speaks more about him to me that apparently it does to you.
REPLY – “A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke.” (blame Kipling) ~ E
Smokey (13:07:54) : “pman, Zimmerman, and others who revel in ad hominem attacks against the messenger are as slimy as the Guardian.”
Yes, they have some nerve. Sliming people on account of their supposed connections to moneyed interests is your speciality, and here they are muscling in on the territory.
There oughta be a law against it.
Dawn,
If you get this far down the page then I didn’t call you a hippy or liberal. Not that there is anything wrong with hippies or liberals: We need idealists in society just as much as realists. In order to understand all the ins and outs of energy and climate policy though one needs a historical perspective and a good memory.
I’m hazarding a wild guess that you are working for Babcock, as I used to. I remember -20C in Glasgow as a student though in 1980. We didn’t blame climate change then; it was just a cold snap. 1980 of course was around the time that the global warming argument came into vogue (one prediction I remember was that Argyle would be under water by 2010), roughly 5 years after the global cooling argument had been in the news: Both of them of course being blamed on fossil fuels. Hence the ideological beginning of the preposterous “warming masked by cooling” argument which slightly preceded the even more preposterous “warming causes cooling” argument. Thatcher we now know encouraged the global warming catastrophe meme and set up Hadley principally to encourage the greenwashing of nuclear power as opposed to coal power. How do we know that? – because the people in the room at the time told us so!
I remember all the blah, blah about a nuclear future then too since i was designing parts of Sizewell B and helping construct Torness. The nuclear effort failed not because of the greens but due to privatisation when the real costs were revealed to potential investors. This current greenwashing of nuclear power will also fail for exactly the same reason. Exactly what a bankrupt Britain will, or can do, I can’t imagine but it probably involves buying energy from France or getting gas from coal. Scotland of course can happily explore alternative tech for a few years, safe in the knowledge they have plenty of nuclear power.
Incidentally, Howden’s just up the road from Babcock were building wind turbines back then too. Nobody bought them!
As for climate-proofing our houses, it might be an idea to go back to building houses that have walls with a metre of stone in them as in times past. These old houses are much in demand – I’ve got one myself and it fairly retains the heat. No doubt it was indeed cheap fossil fuels that allowed us to reduce wall thicknesses to stupid levels: Not what I call progress.
James Gardiner
That such an intelligent and independent minded person the likes of Anthony Watts has fallen for the Environmental Tobacco Smoke canard is indeed a frightening illustration of the power of the Big Lie. The ETS myth is *the* prime example of how epidemiology as now practised has corrupted the scientific objectivity of Medicine.
The conclusion that second hand smoke is lethal is based on manipulating dodgy statistics until they yield up in a ludicrously strangulated form the answer that the agenda of the “investigators” required. Sound vaguely familiar. A “consensus” is then announced based upon “peer-reviewed” studies and the science is declared “settled”. Any scientific, medical or mathematical specialists who raise methodological and physiological doubts are vilified as creatures of Big Tobacco and the moral equivalent of Joseph Goebbels.
Since tobacco now bears the social and moral stigma once reserved for the clap the propaganda sweeps all before it and politicians, recognising a good bandwagon when it rolls by, rush to regulate the personal behaviour of “free” citizens in the name of the Greater Good.
The irony of such a boondoggle being affirmed on this blog is clear.
Two things.
I’m not having a go at Anthony here. This blog is a monument to the contribution he has made to our collective welfare the world over. Even Hercules, though he had twelve labours, could only perform them one at a time.
Nor have I any doubts about the health risks of smoking itself. Sir Richard Doll’s epidemiology – this was in the sixties before the rot set in – was impeccable and the link he made with lung cancer was established as an irrefutable fact by overwhelming statistical evidence. It is sad that he subsequently lent his truly illustrious name to the ETS farrago.