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.
“Yes – the Govt is misguided in lots of areas. However there are a lot of oil and coal companies with a lot of vested interests”
The CAGW meme is causing the USA to ignore its own vast coal reserves. The USA needs to build coal plants, not windmills and solar, or even nuclear, as it gives the lowest cost stable power and acts to lift the American economy. The money for solar and windmills goes straight to China. How daft is that! Coal is 100% made in America!
The belief that the CAGW meme will somehow lead to better energy policy is bogus. It leads to the downfall of the USA.(Obama, take heed!)
UK Sceptic (03:22:43) :
“…from what I understand of the satellite data used by Phil Jones it was highly selective.”
Roy Spencer is analysing his own data and finding very good agreement with the CRU temperatures. The period analysed is from 1986 and shows a significant warming trend:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/ISH-vs-CRUTem3NH-1986-thru-20091.jpg
The Guardian has closed the comment section and has removed a good number of comments. It’s not likely they were complimentary.
Sachs is astonishingly superficial.
I’m not sure that ‘slimy’ captures the articles essence. I would expect something like this from Michael Moore, not a ‘scientist’. I note that Naomi Oreskes’s new book is touted. After the exposure of her warped ‘Global Warming’ research I find it hard to believe she could actually find a publisher.
I note that comments are closed and the moderator deleted a number of comments that are there.
Well paint me a religious Nazi tobaccy fanatic. Not. I too am currently reeling under the thumb of tobacco smoke and will be spending much time in grief soon enough. Tobacco isn’t even on the “last things” list I would support. Flat earther? Again, not. And the holocaust-flavored term is designed to bully, plain and simple. All of those one-liners aren’t even worthy of printed toilet paper. But Smokey, it doesn’t help to be quoting from Pachy’s book.
I work for NOAA on the side of fisheries and ocean research and preservation. I am not a scientist but I do have the sense that things have gotten out of hand. I see these “talking points” in use daily. I see the “non-science minded” jumping on this train of misinformation. These same people are making policies in our governments. This climate change paranoia has recently created a new division in NOAA called NOAA’s climate service. Where do you think the money will come from to fund this? This planet will run low on seafood and clean water in a matter of decades. Much sooner than any effects that anthropogenic climate change will have, however minute it is. These climate change scare tactics are redirecting our financial interests and priorities to the point where we are shooting ourselves in the foot. If you like clean water and seafood, be concerned. WUWT, thanks for speaking out and providing the truth.
TinyCo2 (01:26:24) :
Here’s a quote by ABC’s Clive Hamilton earlier:
And what, now he’s calling all skeptics terrorists? Yeah, real honest guy, trained in subversion [sarc].
But, creditably, it was their own in-house ombudsman who regularly publicized every typo brought to his attention, including “Guarniad” in order to “encourage” the publication’s copy editors to be more careful.
There’s a wonderful win/win solution available in the new “electronic cigarette.” It vaporizes a nicotine solution, contained in a replaceable cartridge, eliminating cancer-causing tars and the risks of second-hand smoke. (Of course, as safety-Nazis cavil, there’s the danger of overdosing (the same could be said of water) and of addiction, although that’s a moot point for current smokers.)
Whether it’s 99% safer than tobacco, or only 90% safer, is something we can settle later. For now, the product’s existence provides assurance that tobacco prohibition would not be an intolerable imposition on current addicts and would not be flouted by the populace the way alcohol prohibition was.
Here’s a link to the Wikipedia article on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cigarette#Nicotine_solution
Health agency bureaucrats don’t like the idea that the products haven’t been peer reviewed or sought official approval prior to marketing. And they instinctively frown on any advertising that implies health benefits — but that’s primarily because they have an abstinence-based mind-set, and they think that infringes on their “turf.”
The bottom line is that official endorsement of these products, even in the absence of tobacco prohibition, would beneficially impact the nation’s health far more than a continuation of their current mostly futile attempts at tobacco discouragement. Only tiny declines in smoking and snuffing are likely henceforth in the absence of an alternative delivery device.
The real trend, alas, is for some intelligent people on either side of important debates to refuse to believe that another intelligent person could come to a different conclusion on the issue at hand. It is so clear to them, that the obvious conclusion to come to is that other intelligent fellow must not “really” not see it –they must have some other agenda causing them to “deny the obvious”.
“Climate change science is a wondrous intellectual activity.” — Jeffrey Sachs
I’ll say this, it does make me wonder.
Jeffrey Sachs seems to be a very confused individual – or – he is in a position to make money from the AGW scam. Perhaps a combination of the two?
Thank you for your bravery. Senator Inhofe has suffered abuse for years from the radical environmentalists, but he hasn’t stopped his quest for the truth about CO2. Please don’t let them get you down. I live in the US’s ‘outback’, ie, Texas, where a small city just yesterday ran an article about the fraud; the truth is seeping through.
To anyone familiar with Mao Zedong’s tactics of mind control, this agenda of radical environmentalists/carbon crooks is identical to what happened to the Chinese. The warmists are playing from Mao’s handbook, but they’re verbally abusing anyone who disagrees; and despite James Hansen’s statements, so far they haven’t beaten anyone to death. (‘Wild Swans’ should be read by every parent as it is the chilling memoirs of three generations of a Chinese family living through the nightmare of Mao’s reign, effective because of brainwashing.)
“Nil carborundum illigitimi”
This much quoted nonsense phrase, usually attributed to an American general (whose name I have mislaid), is not real Latin; it doesn’t even rise to the level of dog Latin.
As many have already pointed out, and as I have been saying for months, the AGW scam is a highly organized product of the far left. Soros is clearly the puppet master and he uses cutouts like Fenton and Project Syndicate which are all funded by his OSI to give the impression of a large grassroots movement concerned only with the betterment of mankind when it is really just another way for him to amass money and power.
Lenin coined the term “useful idiots” to describe westerners who sympathized with communism and were used to demonstrate how popular far left idiology was with the masses. There is nothing new under the sun, pun intended.
In a few years time, this fraud will probably be in same jail cell with other climate crooks like Hansen, Mann et al
It`s time to start calling these people what they are – criminals.
Lets stop trying to convince these lying crooks that their criminal fraud is based on is “unsound science”. They`re laughing at us because they know it`s all a con, and they’re doing what all good con men do.
Let start calling for criminal trials. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly
And most importantly – call for an amnesty for the first few that come clean now.
Has anyone else noticed that some of the “slime” articles are being written by authors who would never normally work this beat? I am thinking of the current thread at Climate Audit and a previous “slime” article by the “Bagpuss the Cat” author.
Jeet Heer who wrote the current article has written the current article, other articles for the G&M is clearly more comfortable with other venues.
Is this a developing trend — where authors with mostly a political bent describe the state of Climate Science?
Sachs is one of the reasons I quit subscribing to “Scientific American” years ago. He relies on liberal propaganda rather than
reasoned arguments in his editorials
My wife is allergic to tobacco. We don’t allow tobacco smoke anywhere near us.
They think we’d accept their support for our volunteered time helping CA measure Bristlecones and WUWT photograph weather stations?
These people have no ethics.
RockyRoad (05:00:18)
What you’re advocating could easily bankrupt nations, leaving them incapable to capitalize the very transition you’re so sure they need to make
As it has already broken Spain, a destroyed by windmills economy.
I dissected one paragraph of Sachs’ drivel for fun:
“The fact is that the critics — who are few in number”:
From a BBC poll “only 26% of those asked believed climate change was happening and “now established as largely man-made”. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8500443.stm
From an Oct ‘09 Pew poll, “found 57 percent of Americans felt there was evidence that the earth was warming, down from 71 percent in April 2008. But only 36 percent attributed this to human activities, compared with 47 percent last year.”
http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE5B32I520091204
The US’s number likely bests the UK’s 26% at present, thus approximately 3/4 of the US and British citizens are “critics” and Jeffery Sachs is either misinformed, or lying.
“but aggressive in their attacks”
FOI requests are neither “aggressive” nor “attacks”.
” — are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years.”
Umm, I was 8 years old 25 years ago.
“During their long campaign”
I was always skeptical of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative, but only got involved when Obama got elected, cap & trade became a potential reality and the financial and social impacts of this erroneous scientific consensus hit home.
“they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements”
I dare you to say that in a room with Jim Hansen, Richard Lindzen, Michael Mann, John Christy, Gavin Schmidt, Timothy Ball, etc.
“in order to stop action on climate change”
The action on climate change never stops. We are on a 4.5 billion year old continuously evolving planet, its climate will continue to change regardless of what we do.
“with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.”
What bill? We don’t go off to fancy conferences in Copenhagen in our private jets, we work from home in our spare time making our little contribution to undoing the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative.
Jeffrey Sachs is either misinformed, or lying.
Andrew W (01:03:26) :
“””
While I agree that the ‘money from big oil’ meme is nonsense, so is the ’scientists exaggerate AGW to get grants’ meme, and that’s a claim often made in the comments here.
“””
It may not even be conscious but when choosing between coming
to conclusions that will allow you to keep your job versus concluding
something that might lead to a future in used car salesmanship,
you’ll be surprised how creative people can become. I’ve seen it
many times. In many cases it manifests in the simple form of
keeping one’s mouth shut.
Many climate scientists seem to have missed their
true calling in marketing. It may not be as lucrative, but no
one really expects verifiable accuracy from claims for
non-perscription skin care products…
Wow – I used to admire Sachs – a long time ago. What happened? Did fame go to his head or is it his friendship with Bono of U2? This is ridiculous.
First of all, I find it interesting that an economist is running Columbia’s Earth Institute. (Same with Pachauri and the IPCC)
Second, I just finished reading Sach’s book called “The End of Poverty” and I have to say, some of the main poverty reduction themes in his book are right out of the 1976 book titled “RIO: Reshaping the International Order – A Guide to the Club of Rome.”
It’s almost as if Sachs is recycling the NIEO (New International Economic Order) that the UN was pushing in the ’70’s.
Mr. Watts,
I see the paper as more of a last gasp from an AGW promoter.
The readers, in the comments section, clearly are not buying what Sachs is selling.
I would go forward with the interview- be accessible, but tape your conversations and save the original, and make the transcript available if there is any hint of parsing or plugging by the journalist.
The great thing about skeptics is we simply tell the truth. As long as skeptics do that, skeptics will win, ultimately.
I see Mr. Sachs’ piece as a shriek of pain about the dissolution of his faith. He is losing something he held dear, and is blaming those who he wrongly thinks are taking it form him, instead of those who falsely gave him his faith.
What a pity, Anthony, that you actually seem to be buying into the “second-hand smoke” BS (which, exactly like AGW, is nothing but an excuse for erosion of individual liberty based on fraudulent statistics, viz. the late John Daly’s excellent work on the subject). Sorry to hear that your health was weak in your youth, but your blaming SHS is pretty silly because that “effect” – much like human-caused AGW – simply does not exist outside alarmists’ and regulation maniacs’ phrasebooks. You should rather accept that your natural genetic disposition likely makes your respiratory system your weak spot – much as other individuals over-react to other substances like salt or wheat starch, without these substances being “toxic” per se.
PS: I’m a non-smoker, have been all my life, nor do I have any connection – professional or otherwise – with the tobacco, oil, nuclear or pharma industries.
REPLY: You didn’t grow up in it. -A