These guys again?
Excerpts from: Climate scientists plot to hit back at skeptics
Donations to buy ad on climate change
by Stephen Dinan
Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” to gut the credibility of skeptics.
In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of “being treated like political pawns” and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.
“Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules,” Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails.
Some scientists question the tactic and say they should focus instead on perfecting their science, but the researchers who are organizing the effort say the political battle is eroding confidence in their work.
“This was an outpouring of angry frustration on the part of normally very staid scientists who said, ‘God, can’t we have a civil dialogue here and discuss the truth without spinning everything,'” said Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford professor and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment who was part of the e-mail discussion but wants the scientists to take a slightly different approach.
The scientists have been under siege since late last year when e-mails leaked from a British climate research institute seemed to show top researchers talking about skewing data to push predetermined outcomes. Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative body on the matter, has suffered defections of members after it had to retract claims that Himalayan glaciers will melt over the next 25 years.
…
In a phone interview, Mr. Schneider, who is one of the key players Mr. Inhofe cites, said he disagrees with trying to engage in an ad battle. He said the scientists will never be able to compete with energy companies.
“They’re not going to win short-term battles playing the game against big-monied interests because they can’t beat them,” he said.
…
“What I am trying to do is head off something that will be truly ugly,” he said. “I don’t want to see a repeat of McCarthyesque behavior and I’m already personally very dismayed by the horrible state of this topic, in which the political debate has almost no resemblance to the scientific debate.”
Not all climate scientists agree with forcing a political fight.
“Sounds like this group wants to step up the warfare, continue to circle the wagons, continue to appeal to their own authority, etc.,” said Judith A. Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “Surprising, since these strategies haven’t worked well for them at all so far.”
She said scientists should downplay their catastrophic predictions, which she said are premature, and instead shore up and defend their research. She said scientists and institutions that have been pushing for policy changes “need to push the disconnect button for now,” because it will be difficult to take action until public confidence in the science is restored.
“Hinging all of these policies on global climate change with its substantial element of uncertainty is unnecessary and is bad politics, not to mention having created a toxic environment for climate research,” she said.
…
Paul G. Falkowski, a professor at Rutgers University who started the effort, said in the e-mails that he is seeking a $1,000 donation from as many as 50 scientists to pay for an ad to run in the New York Times. He said in one e-mail that commitments were already arriving.
…
George Woodwell, founder of the Woods Hole Research Center, said in one e-mail that researchers have been ceding too much ground. He blasted Pennsylvania State University for pursuing an academic investigation against professor Michael E. Mann, who wrote many of the e-mails leaked from the British climate research facility.
…
In his e-mail, Mr. Woodwell acknowledged that he is advocating taking “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” but said scientists have had their “classical reasonableness” turned against them.
“We are dealing with an opposition that is not going to yield to facts or appeals from people who hold themselves in high regard and think their assertions and data are obvious truths,” he wrote.
==============================
Read the entire article at the Washington Times
Well glory be ! Not really having any direct knowledge of just who Dr Steven Schneider is, I have had him placed on an exalted pedestal, as one of the beacons of higher learning in “CLIMATE SCIENCE”.
Well he would have to be; as the Father of CLIMATE SENSITIVITY, that fundamental constant of Climate Science; the equivalent of the Physicists “c” or “e” or “h” or maybe “k” ; well wouldn’t he ? I mean it is engraved in Stone at the United Nations IPCC headquarters.
Well the good Doctor is a little bit lax in getting some accuracy into the measurement of his universal constant. I mean 3.0 */*^-1 3 is little bit bush isn’t it. Not quite in the same league as 2.99792458 E+8 ms^-1, which is the exact value of (c).
Well heck the Gravitational Constant G has an error of 128 ppm; very crude if you ask me.
The only other exact physical constants, besides (c) are munaught; the permeability of free space which is 4.piE-7VsA^-1m^-1 and epsilonnaught the permittivity of free space, 8.85418781762E-12AsV^-1m^-1. Together those two yield (c) as the velocity of propagation in free space, and also set the impedance of free space at 120.pi Ohms (377 Ohms).
So I guess “climatology” is still a bit behind the 8-ball in its crudeness; something about like ancient Astrology perhaps.
So just how did Dr Schneider come up with his “climate sensitivity” idea; it’s not like he had any data plotted that showed such a relationship (logarithmic) between mean global Temperature and CO2 atmospheric abundance.
What a disappointment, to find out that he is a biologist. I hasten to add, that I will never put down Biologists; that to me looks like one of the truly exciting fields of Science; it’s just that I expected to find that Schneider was a top Stanford Physicist/Mathematician, with a real Doctor of Science Degree, rather than a PhD. Well Dr Laura has a PhD, and I doubt that she knows much about Climate Science.
Willis Eschenbach (01:11:47) :
I will gladly demote myself to henchman in exchange for…
Sharks. With laser beams on their heads.
Since when have biologists achieved the academic study and training to be climate scientists? What makes Erhlich, Falkowski and Schneider qualified to make authoritarian statements about opposing views in climatology?
Isn’t putting something in the New York Times like preaching to the choir ?
@Judith Curry & @Tim (21:48:51) :
“Sounds like this group wants to step up the warfare, continue to circle the wagons, continue to appeal to their own authority, etc.,” said Judith A. Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “Surprising, since these strategies haven’t worked well for them at all so far.”
“Hinging all of these policies on global climate change with its substantial element of uncertainty is unnecessary and is bad politics, not to mention having created a toxic environment for climate research,” she said.
—>> “Okay I’ve been rather harsh on Dr Curry in the past so fair is fair. You have made 2 great points and should be commended for that.”
I totally agree, and I should offer to Dr Curry that I agree with and appreciate her words as quoted in this report. I’ve been very harsh on her before as well. It’s good to see sanity prevailing here.
I suspect there is a strong correlation between the shrillness of these scientists complaints and level they have personally invested in green alternatives or carbon trading enterprises.
When did “skeptics” run an ad in the New York Times ?
Anthony did I miss that ad ?
Lazarus Long (07:03:53) :
What do you call a witch hunt that keeps on finding witches?
Successful.
Bill Marsh (05:19:41) :
RockyRoad (04:52:03) :
Maybe we’ll see the courts settle this once and for all:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522957
(Oh boy, I can’t wait!)
————————-
Careful what you wish for…
——–
Reply:
T. Attorney: Your honor, I wish to call as expert witness Dr. Phil Jones, formerly with the University of East Anglia.
Judge: Please take the stand, Dr. Jones.
(Swearing in)
T. Attorney: Now Dr. Jones, what is your current occupation?
P. Jones: I’m a climate scientist.
T. Attorney: You are a climate scientist?
P. Jones: That’s correct, I’m a climate scientist.
T. Attorney: Do you have any data to back up that claim?
P. Jones: Well, I…
T. Attorney: You do claim to be a climate scientist, do you not?
P. Jones: Well, yes, I do.
T. Attorney: Can you produce your data as evidence you are a climate scientist?
P. Jones: I’m afraid I have made a mess of the data.
T. Attorney: And so any pronouncements regarding climate science you made based on this “mess of data” would be indefensible?
P. Jones: Um, well…
T. Attorney: Can you produce this data for us, Dr. Jones?
P. Jones: I don’t have it.
T. Attorney: A little louder, please. I’m afraid the jury can’t hear you.
P. Jones: I don’t have it, but you can get it from other sources.
T. Attorney: Are those “other sources” the ones you used for your pronouncements as a climate scientist?
P. Jones: No, sir, I got my data elsewhere.
T. Attorney: But which you currently don’t have.
P. Jones: I’m afraid that is right.
T. Attorney: Thank you, Dr. Jones. I have no further questions; your witness.
Ace responds …
With friends like this, who needs enemies.
A very cynical part of me hopes this happens. It’s a step towards bringing the discussion out in the open. Our major media outlets have largely ignored the climate scandals, so the more attention is brought to the matter, the better.
These guys should just stick to the facts. If they want to convert skeptics then they need to answer their critics, not attack them. They also need to quit making false statements about right-wing corporate-funded conspiracies unless they can find some actual facts to support those statements.
Once again, we see scientists playing advocate instead of performing science. (Remember post normal science?) Normal science includes open debate, full disclosure, repeatable results and comparison of the hypothetical to the real world.
“…researchers who are organizing the effort say the political battle is eroding confidence in their work…”
It’s not the political battle, per se, that is eroding confidence in their work. It’s the quality of their science and the quality of the character and ethics they have displayed that has changed the public perception. Thank goodness for the non-funded watchdogs who have documented their behavior.
“Who is John Galt?” (10:06:26)
Whoever he is, I think he’s right.
First of all, an ad on the back page of the NYT shows the alarmists in a new light, for the elites who still read that rag: namely, on the defensive. “You mean there isn’t a consensus?”
Second, nobody else cares a fig for or pays any attention to what a political group says in a NYT advertisement. At best it’ll get a 10-second mention on the broadcast news shows. So at about $50K, it’ll be a colossal waste of money. Let’s just hope none our tax money sneaks in there.
/Mr Lynn
So far, thier PR stunt plans have drawn a hailstorm of bad blog.
These gents are walking into a buzzsaw.
jjohnson (07:23:08) :
Bravo!
Arrogant ****tards need to understand that the sun doesnt shine out of their methane releasing orifices, and stop with the ‘poor little us’ persecution complexes. The research funding and ‘communication’ resources are enormous, and squarely in their corner. If they cant get their way with the propaganda machine they already have, they dont deserve to prevail
But the problem is that they don’t believe that the sun shines at all!!!!!
Ref – Paddy (09:32:51) :
“Since when have biologists achieved the academic study and training to be climate scientists? What makes Erhlich, Falkowski and Schneider qualified to make authoritarian statements about opposing views in climatology?”
_________________________
The transfer of Climatology to sub-study status within Geology has been proposed, evaluated, and blessed by all applicable agencies. Henseforth, anyone who is not a certified Geologist is prohibited from uttering, bloging, or publishing anything about the subject in the NYT. Violators will be flogged, drawn and quartered, and then beheaded; their body parts will be taken to the four corners of the Earth; their heads will be piked on the roof of Buckingham Palace; their names will be striken from all printed and engraved surfaces. NOTE: Should any Biologist violate this decree, they will be tortured for 40 days and 40 nights before the above sentence is carried out.
Hey Anthony, isn’t it great to know that you’re so “Well-funded”?
Erhich et al: Please DO name names … and show us the money. Put up or shut up!
I don’t really mean the “shut up” part, of course. The more exposure these issues get the better. They can’t hurt the skeptical case with ads like these, they will only become a laughing stock. Clearly they’ve given up on facts and science as allies — which don’t seem very loyal to the alarmist side these days.
And NYT or any other “mainstream” rag that runs these ads will find themselves unpleasantly associated with the silliness. One more nail in the coffin.
@John Whitman ‘However, I just have difficulty understanding what we would significantly gain with dueling ads in the NYT or anywhere in MSM. I do not think we could keep up a sustained campaign. Whereas it seems possible substantial ad money would very indirectly come to them through green NGOs and green industries, especially the progressively greening energy industries who switched some investments from fossil to green energies because the thought there was a reasonable probability that Copenhagen would be ’successful’. The energy industries were wisely covering their bets.’
Have you never been part of or witnessed the economic power of the virtual flash mob?
It’s a marvel….
On the one hand you got, in this case, sketchy scientist with in their mind a lot of friend scientist, but those friends have families and carriers to think about and due to them being responsible they’re not completely mental, sure if you can get easy funding, but actually going extremist? Then you have companies, who will stand by their product only as long as it will sell, and they’ll have a change of heart on a moments notice if the revenue stream is more lucrative in the other direction. And politicians, who will always be politicians i.e. they’ll pretty much go: Oh, that’s what it meant, well that changes everything — follow the crowd follow the crowd, always follow the potential voters.
The other side, well the other side consist of the rest of us 6.7 billion people and counting. Think big, think global, and think ginormous (bow your head, clap your hands, stomp the ground) internet.
Even if you only can rouse 1% of 1% of the 1.7 billion, or what ever, more or less always connected people to donate one buck, you’ll still be raising about 170 thousand bucks. Internetians rather donate one buck 50 times to 50 different projects, rather then 50 bucks one time to one project.
It’s all about the numbers, and the numbers are never on the loosing side, never has been. And besides what scares connected people more: AGW or higher electricity bills? :p
What does it matter if they run an ad campaign in the New York Times nobody reads that rag anymore other than the true believers.
Wow. The “Worlds Leading Climatologists” are BIOLOGISTS!!!!
How many “you’re no climate scientist” arguments does that revelation render baseless?
Funny thing is “Climate Science” and “Climate Scientists” are non-sequitors.
Here is the definition of scientific method:
1) present a hypothesis
2) experiment to define a causal mechanism
3) test the validity of the hypothesis by performing experiments in which the outcome can be predicted, verified and reproduced
4) verify that this outcome is valid for all possible inputs
5) publish a theory
By that simple and universally accepted definition of the scientific method (that even a sack like Erlich would have to accept) the entire body of work around Climatology and Global Warming are scientifically baseless.
So maybe THAT’s why nobody has any confidence in their work. That and the fact that they’re total dicks about it. I know that’s why I reject it all. The upside is, as pathetic as they are at being scientists, they’ll be that much worse at being politicians. Watching a bunch of academics try to challenge the PR machine of the energy/polymer/industrial conglomerate will be as fun as it was for the Romans watching tigers devouring gladiators in twos and threes. Socrates once said the true test of intelligence is accepting what you don’t know. Thinking they can beat these industries at PR makes these scientists the dumbest guys in the world. A fact that they apparently want to put on display in plain view of the public.
Well by all means proceed!!!
Willis Eschenbach
You wanted henchmen and I’d like to volunteer. Someone suggested ‘henchpersons’ for those of us of the other gender – but that’s cold; ‘henchwomen’ is better, but frankly I like ‘wenchhenchmen’ best. Can I be one of your wenchhenchmen?
Given their past commitment to the policy of reducing carbon dioxide emissions as a ‘noble’ cause, I think there must be people waiting for just the right signal to stage a counterattack or who are working ‘under the radar’ to develop a new cadre of supporters among the youth.
This period must be especially galling for those who had earlier been considered respected scientists and now find their personal reputations and the value of their life’s work hidden under a dark cloud of suspicion. They must know that fighting the wrong battle now will only place them in a deeper chasm of distrust.
I believe it will take much more than simple advertisements in the elite media press to counteract the damage done by the Climategate files.
I’d love it if I got paid to write. If anyone who knows how to obtain money from the “well funded, merciless” detractors of the WWF/ipcc propaganda campaign, please post it.