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
This definitely seems circular:
taxes->grants->donations->news paper ads->journalism->public opinion->taxes
I share the concern that the only significant effect will be a slight debasing of science – which will soon be exclusively seen as an ineffective lobbying cause.
Paul Ehrlich has predicted that hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. would prematurely die. Finally, he has decided to confirm his prediction by attacking hundreds of millions of people, the skeptics. Will the ads be enough for his first prediction to come true? Good luck to him and his equally mentally ill colleagues.
I didn’t realize Anthony, Steve, Jeff Id and the rest of them were so well funded…
I’m tempted to donate to hasten this opportunity for them to make fools of themselves.
Of course, if they are getting $1000 donations from scientists who’ve been feeding at the public trough then I may have already paid my fair share…
Thats very good news!
1) They think we are organized.
2) Running scary stories ad’s.
Fine!
In the mean time, here is my ad;
http://www.klimaskolen.com/DonaldDuck1.aspx
The world goverments will stand behide them because they can see all that money coming their way.Our P.M says he belives in AGW no mater what others say.(n.z)
Chronicles: The Wars between the ‘Ad Hoc’ versus the ‘In Hock’
So we get ‘Ad Hoc’ scientists publishing against us ‘In Hock’ skeptical science bloggers. We wouldn’t be ‘In Hock’ if all the hypothetical Big Oil checks atributed to us by the ‘Ad Hoc’ were real.
John
The Washington Times editorial is also worth a read:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/03/global-warmings-biggest-winners/
Meanwhile, here in the UK, “A review from the UK Met Office says it is becoming clearer that human activities are causing climate change. It says the evidence is stronger now than when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change carried out its last assessment in 2007.” – Pallab Ghosh, Science correspondent, BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8550090.stm
Just heard on BBC News (TV) that conditions in the Baltic are so bad that the icebreakers gone to the rescue of a passenger ferry are now stuck…
By all means let them advertise. That ad will become a figure in some future dissertation regarding the low point of science at the start of this millennium. And its not just climatology – the the British medical journal, Lancet, recently published a retraction of research they had run in previous articles, supposedly showing a link between autism in children and vacinating them for measles, mumps, and rubella. -Come to find out that the funding for this research was done by parents of autistic children and their lawyers. -Mad $cienti$t$ indeed!
This idea is just wrong-headed. Anyone who understands political science will intuitively grasp that to the degree they go ahead with this they make themselves “just another special interest” arguing for their turn at the funding trough.
That’s a large mistake, and a confirmation of the critique many of their opponents already level at them.
To the degree science has power in the political arena, it is to the degree that it is perceived to be disinterested in political outcomes. “It is what it is”, is the strength of science.
Where to begin…
“Tired of being treated as pawns”. Well, they are pawns and bought pawns at that. They are government paid-for pawns and they havel put out the kind of science they have been paid for. Oil company paid-for science? Nothing beats government paid for science.
“Gentlepersons debate”? Is it the “gentle” kind of person that viciously squashed honest questioners and destroyed careers if they persisted? Are these the “gentlepersons” that threw every imaginable obstruction in the way of honest questioners who simply asked for data to replicate or refute their conclusions?
“An outpouring of anger and frustration”? Why? Because they whored-out science and honest people objected? Because what they said wasn’t accepted as gospel? Who are the sanctimonious people?
“The emails leaked” Thank God they did, someone had a conscience somewhere to put them out. Note, leaked not stolen or hacked. It says someone had a conscience and couldn’t go with the sociopaths running the CRU.
“Big-monied interests”. Yes. Believe that and you believe in the tooth fairy. They live their lives living from big grant to big grant so that’s how they see reality. Everything that happens to these people must have big money behind it. Sponsors and opposition. They cannot imagine otherwise. Depressing when you think a scientist should think “outside of a box” generally. Says something about these “scientists”.
“Created a toxic environment for climate research”. Good. They aren’t scientists. They are political hacks with a technological background. They would even measure up to a competent engineer. Any engineer can do statistics and that’s all climate scientists are. Difference is an an engineer has to do good statistics because his job depends on it.
There is no mathematical theory for “climate science”. There is no theory to climate science to give it any legitimacy at all. There is nothing to be tested to prove or disprove. Climate Science It has no legitimacy as a science.
Yet the US spent $79 billion on these quacks in the past 10 years. Look at what that money has brought.
Brilliant idea after a long, cold snowy winter to take out global warming ads. A real stroke of marketing genius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich
Science is the process of exposing the truth of how nature works, framed in the light of how mankind can be educated, to the processes at work, so individuals can use the information to better interact with nature, for their own good.
Good husbandry, and improving farming techniques usually protects nature, and people profit from the increased carrying capacity that results. There are positive feed backs to this system, that result from good education practices.
I would add to the general understanding of how the weather works, so the general population can do a better job of taking care of the Earth, and all of it peoples. Toward this end, I add all of the time and mental effort I can muster, with out any outside funding to solving the worlds problems.
I do not like the huge grant amounts being wasted on funding those whose goal is, to gather as much money and power to themselves at the great expense of every one else, including the environment itself. That is why I post here, and I suspect that is much the same for most of the others.
The removal of the impediment to understanding, should be the reason for institutions of higher learning, as well as general basic education for the masses, to make them more independent and profitable, to the point of self sustainability. It was one of the goals of our founding fathers, but the current state of the government does not reflect that anymore?
Which side of this action are these people on, that they would spread deception and lies, waste funding without producing anything usable, and try to control other by trying to keep them ignorant, arrogant elitists like these just need to get out of the way, and let the rest of us get on with life.
Richard Holle
A good way to improve confidence in climate models would be to get a prediction right once in a while.
“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,”
My goodness, delusions of Godhood.
Ehrlich and Schneider must have hides as thick as elephants. Do they truly believe that the human race has no collective memory of their outrageous history of failed prophecies of doom.
That any reputable seat of higher learning is still prepared to employ either of these two must surely exemplify either breath-taking human gullibility, or ideological fanaticism.
That’s right, they don’t get it Paul. Climate Change Science is post-normal – it has and always has been political – you made it that way. You were the first of the Alarmists and dont let anyone tell you otherwise.
So you’ve gotta do what Mike Hulme says, it ain’t about science, its a war of values and so you’ve got to start playing the post-normal game!
Thats ’cause the sceptics think it’s normal science but they are wrong. They think its about truth. If its about evidence, truth, science, they win. But it has never been about truth, ask Mike Hulme, as Jerry, it has always has been about – you made it Paul and Steve made it all those years ago – you make it P.N.S.! And so it will stay that way…until it all just falls apart and vanishes into thin air.
“It’s worse than we thought. They are on to us”
“It’s big oil”
“But they are our biggest supporters”
“We must hide the decline in our populairty”
“Yes, this is unprecented in the record”
“Lets get a press release to the New York Times”
“Its a travestry that they do not believe us any more”
“Yes, we need another disaster like Hurricane Katrina”
Dr. Curry is right, don’t do it.
Sen. Inhofe knows the political ropes, his advice is likewise sound.
Dr. Schneider will be the 1st one they roast. He’s clearly not looking both ways before crossing the street if he stick his neck out there.
The Met Office article by Peter Stott is here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8550090.stm
Paul R. Ehrlich? Him again?! Isn’t it about time for him to retire to a well-deserved obscurity? Must be a nice job to have where you’re paid despite being so often wrong about, well, just about everything.
Here’s a hint boys — you’re being trounced not by ads or political infighting, but by something far more deadly — good science being performed by real scientists seeking to gain understanding and not conforming to a politically imposed orthodoxy.
On another note, I found this article interesting, suggesting that the previous Ice Age was preceded by fluctuations in the climate that might be similar to what’s been happening the past few centuries. Who knows, the tipping point that’s been spoken of so frantically may just be around the corner, when the next cooling episode keeps on cooling and cooling till the massive glaciers once again begin their deadly march south.
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-study-says-global-warming-may-be.html
The press release from Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres is here:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/haog-wsw030210.php
this is a bunch of kool-aid drinkers. They will go down with their ship. I would pity the fools if they were not wasting tax dollars….
So, why do I get so harsh and abrasive about (and abusive to) enviromentals and climate kooks?
Well, these three fine fanatics, have really explained it for me.
“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 ”
Indeed. That would be lovely.
I’m sure many sceptics would like nothing more.
Here’s an alternative idea- forget the newspaper ad- that only buys so much space, is expensive and doesn’t allow for commentary/dialogue. We live in the modern world, so how about using modern tools? If you’ve got something to communicate to the public, start a website a put forward your case there. You’ll be able to go into much more detail and answer any questions as they arise. I’m certain you’ll get more views by presenting fair and intersting information on a website than the back page of a newspaper anyway- most people interested in AGW theories know the internet’s where it’s at.
The reputations of scientists increase in the eyes of the public when they are seen to stick with science. Looking for ways to take cheap political shots at people who’s opinion you disagree with in ad format isn’t going to help anything and will in all likelyhood backfire. If you truly want a civil dialogue then you will need to present yourselves and your ideas in a civil manner. If you want a political fight, then plenty of people will sign up for that also, but as you say that’s a far cry from discussing actual science.
If you want to be acknowledged as scientists, stick to science.
That’s how good their science is that they have to defend it in the sewer. Impressive admission of incompetence.