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.
@ur momisugly Paul Dennis (00:37:09) :
Thank you Paul. We appreciate your honesty and scientific integrity as someone coming from the CRU.
We thank you for your openness and hope to build a more open and transparent scientific process to help us all understand the real problems our planet faces, independent of political agendas.
Regards
Andy Scrase
Interestingly I note from the list of sponsors for Project Syndicate’s “From Kyoto to Copenhagen” conference last year included:
*shock*
Shell and
Dong Energy
– As well as various “green” companies – an obvious conflict of interest judging by Sach’s standards.
See this link:
http://www.project-syndicate.org/conference/
The one person at work who is a moon landing denier is the strongest vocal supporter of CAGW in our organisation. This proves nothing of course (except that we hired an idiot) but it shows how childish Sach’s article is and how lacking in academic rigour. IMO this sort of article only turns people off. It insults over 50% of the population which only hardens resolve. I doubt it turns any skeptics into CAGW believers and I would think the tone would raise alarm bells amongst many fence sitters.
I just posted this on teh Guarniad website:
When I began weighing the aruments of the two bitterly opposed sides in this Great Debate, I was determined to (a) dig for the source data behind the various hypotheses and attempt to confirm/refute the claims and (b) observe the psychology of the two sides as revealed by dispassionate presentation of evidence or by shrill appeals to emotion.
After long thought I conclude that:
(i) From the available data, sea level rises, variations in icecap area and temperature fluctuations in recent decades are each within the range of known historical variation.
(ii) The sceptics’ arguments are increasingly dependent on data, and the warmists’ arguments increasingly dependent on personal attacks.
(iii) The two datasets I most trust are the CO2 PPM readings from Mauna Loa and the temperature data from the University of Alabama at Huntsville, both real-time rather than historical.
(iv) The two camps are agreeing on the validity of current data, and so the accuracy of IPCC temperature forecasts is there for all to observe.
(v) Divergence between IPCC forecasts and actual data is large, and has been growing. If actual temperatures rise fast in the next few years, the IPCC case may still survive. If the divergence continues to rise, the IPCC’s credibility will be destroyed and it will need to be disbanded.
Unlike in politics and religion, scepticism in science is healthy. This Guardian article reads like the words of a politician or theologian; if its author has any qualifications in science he should be stripped of them. If he has none, he has no business occupying the position of Director of the Earth Institute.
(PS: for non-British readers, the “Guarniad” spelling is a British in-joke, referring to its reputation for errorrs/erorrs, oh, dammit, mistakes!)
According to my understanding, Jeffrey D. Sachs lacks sufficient background to understand the scientific issues. This disqualifies him as an authority. Obviously, what was written and the way it was written is beyond the pale, even for the Guardian. Like some other respondents, I take this personal public attack on you as a sign of desperation, preceding the imminent implosion of the “case”.
The media playing field has changed, the Internet/blogsphere is more important than the Guardian. With the correct attention on your part to the facts of the issues and the evidence, someone like Sachs becomes irrelevant.
The fact that Sachs even had to write this push piece is cause for celebration. The Alarmists had planned to be popping corks right about now as the COP15 treaty was getting US Senate ratification and Obama was signing the Cap’n Trade laws.
They did not plan to be watching their shibboleths fall and the science get so “unsettled”.
I have evidence that Jeffery Sachs takes money from Mexican druglords. Do you know where my evidence is? It’s in the exact same place as his evidence that people like Watts takes tobacco money. So when Sachs retrieves his evidence, he can get mine too.
I also have evidence for a multitude of unsavoury things that Sachs does, but I’m afraid I’ll get snipped, needless to say these acts would leave Clinton Woods and Gary Glitter red faced. That evidence is also at the same location.
Go get that evidence Sachs and good luck. (moron)
“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.”
With all due respect, sir . . . and as an ex-smoker who once had a two and one-half pack-a-day habit, let me suggest that you look at the myth of second-hand smoke with the same skepticism that you display for things AGW.
You may not like the smell of cigarette smoke, but there is no empirical evidence that it kills or causes disease. In all the world, there is no death certificate that reads “second-hand smoke.”
Columbia eh? Every time I hear about someone from that place (Obama, Ayers, etc) I wonder why we don’t just deport the lot of them.
I have been an avid reader of your blog since the very early days Antony and it has kept me sane. Many, many thanks.
I recently read a quote from Mohandas Ghandi – ‘First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.’
I feel that the stupidity we are seeing at the moment demonstrates that we are definitely at stage 3 of his maxim…
AGW is about as authentic as that hairpiece on Jeffrey D. Sachs’ head.
AndrewW:”While we’re all individuals, there is without doubt many prominent lobbyists who have had an association with the coal industry in arguing against coals burnings link to acid rain or with the tobacco industry arguing against tobaccos link to lung cancer who now argue against AGW. Sachs was probably not referring specifically to you Anthony.”
There probably are Andrew, except they’d be a fine old age by now. The coal contraversy took place in the fifies and was well and truly won by the end of that decade. The tobacco issues started in the sixties and were over before the end of that decade.
In fact what Sachs, was trying to do, and it is a constant meme with the non-scientific CAGW proponents, like the use of the work “denier” meant clearly to associate those who oppose CAGW theory with holocaust deniers, was to label all sceptics as the nutters that opposed the fact that coal caused acid rain (easy to prove, SO2 mixes with H2O) and the tobacco lobby. When passions are aroused, to the extent that they are among alarmist, debated is replaced by hatred. Route 101 for hatred is to first demonise, then dehumanise your opponents. Their subsequent executions are then easy for the populace to swallow.
I commented on the post to the effect that I thought it was unworthy of the Guardian to publish an article that could easily be seen as an encitement to violence. The Guardian has the best comments section on the net, but it’s editorial policy has moved a million miles from their founders “Facts are sacred” policy.
He won’t contact you Anthony, it’s a classic scenario in propoganda, tell your lie then move on and refuse to debate it. Where’ve I seen that before?
By the way, others must also have noticed a sudden common theme running amongst the alarmists. From the Aussie Climate Change Minister to this Sachs fool and others all mentioning tobacco all of a sudden along with CC it’s worse than we thought.
Might they have been tele-conferencing or some other way co-ordinating this recent rise in attacks on skeptics?
I’d be interested in a summary of the recent comments by these alarmists and their common theme. But ofcourse if I were to mention the conspiracy word…….
Daniel H (01:23:13) :
‘Project Syndicate is a Soros funded operation.
Jeffrey Sachs is a close personal friend of Soros and they’ve spoken together at numerous public events. Search for “Soros and Jeffrey Sachs” on youtube.’
Big Al, Soro, and the UN must have their CO2 Cap and Trade or less.
(and they know they are losing that battle)
Anthony,
Your repugnance for Sachs slimy diatribe is shared by many, me included. A short time ago, I occasionally wrote a short response to the sillier Guardian warmist articles, but was usually removed by a moderator for unacceptable comments – depsite never using coarse language or Old English, as many of the warmist responders to Guardian articles do, or using ad hominem statements.
I check these articles most days but can no longer see the point of attempting to reason with idiots suffering from religious mania.
As to tobacco, I was bought up in a teetotal and non-smoking household; consequently, when I entered the world of work, I began smoking and drinking, thoroughly enjoying both to excess for many years. However, I have been a non-smoker for a number of years, drink alcohol very moderately so I guess wisdom does eventually come to most of us.
As to the likes of Prof Sachs, a short spell on the staff of a university many years ago dispelled my somewhat idealistic notions of university academics or scientists operating on a purer ethical plane than the average man in the street.
I read Sachs’ article in the Guardian and was disgusted that a newspaper that uses the slogan ‘Comment is free but truth is sacred’ should print such contentless venom.
Even more depressing is the quality of comment on the Guardians – the unthinking, uncritical cheering from the sidelines and the continued repetition of the “d” word.
Some months back I had a lengthy exchange with a rabid AGW supporter on his blog – at the end of the discussion he said that despite the logic and facts of my position, nothing would change his mind. Now if that isn’t denialism I don’t know what is.
Perhaps leave nicotine out of this?
I have smoked for over half a century and intend to continue to do so — at the same time I am glass a year drinker of alcohol and despise it for the harm it does to humanity.
So, please don’t show me yours and I’ll not show you mine?
( E.M.Smith (01:33:37) is herewith endorsed.)
Ricardo, Nil carborundum illigitimi? Should that not have “sub” at the end? That would lend the “”down” part of your quote, & a very nice quote it is too!! Experts in Latin will comment further I dare say.
I am amazed that someone of such junior years has been employed in such an eminent position, as it seemed to me these were the rantings of a youthfull revolutionary anti-free-market Marxist Socialist, by his very words! He has the look of “I’m all right Jack, but you will have to pay” smugness about his demeanour.
I think smoking is a pretty horrible thing, yet I used to smoke the occasional cigarrette/cigar & pipe before keeping fit put it to the sword. I think people who wish to smoke should do so, they have rights too, but as John Brignall has shown at Number Watch, the second-hand smoking lobby had powerful backers & were not averse to distorting (& then some) the “science” for their own objectives! Yet again we see people who believe that lying is ok for their cause, the truth can go hang as long as we win in the end!
Keep up the good work Mr Watts et al, we need you all!
I was so furious about this article, coupled with the absurd Michael Mann interview (swift-boating), and Josh Garman (Guardian Feb 15th 2010), that i wrote an article for a UK mag who are publishing a Climategate/temperature piece of mine this week (I’ll link when it’s up), but I fear my anger shone through and the editor didn’t reply.
I listed climateaudit, wattsupwiththat, The Air Vent, Bishop Hill, Jo Nova, pielkes Sr and Jr, Chiefio, among others and wondered how well-marshalled and well-funded they were.
Sorry to go on at length, but I should have included in my previous post that no-one I know in the UK and no-one I correspond with in New Zealand or Australia believes the CAGW story, but acknowledge that the climate appears to warmed and cooled around some sort of mean temperature that has allowed the natural world as we know it to evolve.
As a retired educator, I am very concerned about the sheer amount of warmist propaganda that has been written into school curricula across the Western world, which is a whole other story!
I have said this before on your blog Anthony.
Ad hominem attacks are a sign that you are winning – it is all they have.
And I also repeat “Do not associate with or do interviews with anyone from the BBC”. I watched “Country File” last night with John Craven chatting to kids in school with their nice new windmill. I came away with the impression that the school windmill, about 25 feet high with 3 foot span, was able to provide all the school’s energy, and with the left overs they would provide plenty for the village too. The way he was feeding questions to the kids was shameless.
After watching more greeneie nonsence about artisans making coffins from willow wands, thus bringing work back to the countryside – really I’m not making this up…………
Just imagine what they could do with an interview with you.
As of now the total of responses on the Grauniad site is almost 1000 and an eyeball scan suggests overwhelmingly opposed to Sachs so it might get through.
Remember that the paper is totally dependent on public sector advertising for its survival and is the house journal for mental masturbators.
Giving credence to an economist’s thoughts on climate is like giving credence to an editorial cartoonist’s thoughts on quantum mechanics.
“Slimed” *was* the right word.
Well said Anthony.
Autonomous Mind wrote a rather enlightened piece on the same article here:
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/when-it-comes-to-climate-science-economists-are-still-dismal/
UK Sceptic (01:21:37) :
“If lucrative grants were not involved in promoting AGW how would you explain the behaviour of CRU’s Phil Jones? Did his drive to warp climate data arise from a sense of twisted intellectual masochism?”
Roy Spencer has just posted an analysis of satellite data that is in very good agreement with HadCRUT:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/new-work-on-the-recent-warming-of-northern-hemispheric-land-areas/
His conclusions:
“I’ll have to admit I was a little astounded at the agreement between Jones’ and my analyses, especially since I chose a rather ad-hoc method of data screening that was not optimized in any way. Note that the linear temperature trends are essentially identical; the correlation between the monthly anomalies is 0.91.”
Either Spencer is right and there is no evidence that Phil Jones has been warping the data, or Spencer is warping the data as well. Which do you think?
Yes the Phony report only proves to even the most average reader that the ones that clutch to the IPCC line are aligned with the proposals at Cop15, When the third world decreed that they viewed the “Agreement as suicide and a incineration of their countries” most people would have taken the sincerity expressed as sign that all is not as it appears on global Warming!.. I have heard that a-lot of green peace activists where happy until they where not wanted as the leaders arrived in Cop15!. Once they where caught up in some extreme poilic violence They realized that it was all a big show!.