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
Perfect timing.
It’s going to look like exactly what it is, a defensive move.
It’s not going to play well at all.
We should all donate and encourage them.
These people are hilarious. They can’t take a [snip] without organizing a conference to discuss it first, so naturally they have to believe that “skeptics” are “well-organised”, because if they ever faced the fact that our disorganization is almost total, their precious little egos would fall apart like a Hong Kong suit in the rain.
Oh, yes, and bring on the old “Big Oil” canard, as well, for good measure. Anyone know where I can get some of that river of cash?
I’m glad to see “The Washington Times”, owned by Reverend Sun Myung Moon of the one true Unification Church, exposing this false religion of AGW which is confusing so many gullible, busy people all over the world.
I’m also glad to see Reverend Moon use his powers to cause “private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times” which underlies this story.
I wonder if Rev. Moon is the source behind the stolen Climategate emails ? I look forward to more private emails being stolen and made public – this is obviously a good way to keep climate scientists, bankers, Pentagon planners, pro golfers, CEO’s and website founders honest.
” $1,000 donation from as many as 50 scientists to pay for an ad”
WE should be able to match that with 1000 scientists paying $50 each.
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!)
I watched an end of the world movie a number of years back (forgot the name) that had one of the best lines I’ve ever heard, and should be repeated out loud by all scientists at the start of everyone of their “arguments”:
“What do I think?; What do I know?; What can I prove?” (paraphrased)
I suspect there would be a lot less “arguments” postulated.
Jose
The McCarthyists are afraid of McCarthyism?
The AGW movement has used totalitarian master surpression techniques as thier trade mark.”Deniers” “contrarians” they have pictured everyone dissaproving thier wiews to be attached with an evil hidden agenda or just simply stupid.There been proposed that “opposition” shall be inprisoned.
I can tell you all. Nothing makes me so angry when this people and in power, and used to be in an propagandic monolog. Now is crying like the princess on the pea, when they no more is alloud to advocate and pressured to be just as scientific they`ve claimed to be. Climatescience has put it self where it is right now. I think, and they know, that they won’t survive to adapt to the scientific basic rules. Its thier privilege to make up thier own rules whats concider to be science that is under siege…finnaly!!
I posted this little skit on the Guardian because they seem to be interested in “exploring matters of trust”
Scene: a quaintly thatched medieval village.
[Enter sorcerer Jones]
Jones: RUN, run for your lives! Abandon your homes! Abandon your crops!. A dragon cometh!
Peasant 1: Where? Where?
Jones: He cometh through the fog!
Peasant 1: Where in the fog?
Jones: Why should I tell you? You’ll just say you can’t see him.
Peasant 1: You’re asking me to abandon my home and crops, I think I have a right to see for myself.
Jones: Are you a sorcerer?
Peasant 1: No, I’m an honest peasant.
Jones: Honest peasants cannot see dragons, only sorcerers can. It’s because we study statistics.
Peasant 1: Call statistician! Call McIntyre!
Jones: Run! Run for your lives! Abandon your homes and crops! A dragon cometh!
Peasant 2: Where? Where?
Jones: No way I’m telling you! I squinted through the fog all night, you think I’m just going to TELL you where he is?
Peasant 2: Uh, weren’t you PAID to stand watch? Isn’t telling us everything you know – like part of the job?
Jones: Run! Run for your lives! Abandon your homes, crops and children! But first, slay the unbelievers.
Wait a minute… an ad in the New York Times? They’d be preaching to the choir!
What a bunch of morons!
Met Office to give up making seasonal forecasts
The Met Office have an undoubted abysmal record of long term forecasting both locally and globally. It is also a fact that the effect of natural variation increases dramatically for longer term forecasts, so e.g. it is very hard (for a real forecaster) to say they can predict the climate in 100years when they clearly can’t forecast the climate 10years, 1years (9/10 high) or even for the next season.
Whilst it may not appear very obvious, this is in fact as clear an admission of defeat as there can ever be. For an organisation which is still spinning the PR of being able to predict the climate in 100 years, to refuse to commit itself to even a 3month forecast because it has been so abysmal at such forecasts, means that it is really saying: “we can’t forecast short-term-climate/ long-term-weather” more than one month in advance.
You reap what you sew.
If climate scientists wish to stop being treated as political pawns, perhaps they might begin to stop acting like political pawns and repair the problems of practice within their discipline which make it all too easy for anyone peeking at their work to question their findings.
But the human tendency is to blame someone else.
”””’Judith Curry (04:31:21) : One comment on this. I think Steve Schneider deserves some credit here, and not just for his statements in this news article. While he might be classified as somewhat alarmist in the 1980’s, his thoughts on this topic are quite nuanced, particularly about uncertainty in climate change. Read his essay here: [see Judith’s post for address] . . . . It heavily draws from Jerry Ravetz’s postnormal science””””
Judith,
Given that you might likely be right, I would think Steve Schneider’s message [that you referenced] would better serve him in a different venue than with a NYT ad associated with the group of others that the article talks about.
We might gently advise him, somehow.
John
Even Dr. Curry still seems to think Big Oil is the villain of this piece. And where do you think Big Oil is sending the money? Find out the real numbers instead of your assuptions.
As Will has pointed out the vilification of the other side started with the CAGW alarmists.
Where is the real money trail? Authoritarians have a pattern that is showing up here. Pick an issue that you can get people fired up about (CAGW). Fake or twist the data to support your position. Find someone to smear with the blame. Condemn anyone who attempts to be rational and charge that they are using the tactics you are using. Convince people that you are the only solution. Who might that be? How about Big Government?
@ur momisugly John A (21:22:36) :
The Big Oil (please do not refer to them as ‘energy companies’, that does not sound evil enough) ‘slush funds’ have been comingled with the slush fund of the ‘Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’ in an effort to obfuscate the origin of the funding to the ‘denialist machine’.
————————
Wait, these guys are biologists, not climate scientists, why are they being referred to as ‘top climate researchers’ ?
Indiana Jones – who do you have working on this climate change stuff?
Biologists – Top men
Indiana Jones – Who?
Biologists – TOP….. MEN
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…
The fact is that these scientists view the public as imbeciles to be manipulated by whoever has the deepest pockets and the most air time.
The public obviously can’t think for themselves. An advertisement will get surely get these morons back on-board! After all, when they controlled the media message, there was smooth sailing and high public approval! $50k should be enough to offset those that nasty email leak, because the public has short memories and is, frankly, stupid beyond belief.
Revenge of the Turds?
*********************************************
Willis Eschenbach (01:11:47) :
I demand henchmen!
Arch-villains also need minions. Sign me up!
IanP (21:58:57) :
The New Zealand Herald piece by Steve Conner surely tells a sad story re the quality of the newspaper science reports down under!
I saw that yesterday Ian, in utter disbelief. But if one reads the Your Views pages when the AGW issue comes up, Kiwis (8/10?) have a very different attitude than I saw just three years ago. Of late, however, the Herald just avoids asking for views.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/your-views/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501154&objectid=10609766&pnum=2
If you write the author and complain about the headline, they shrug and say someone else writes the headlines.
NZCPR is a constant source of better info and discussion.
The energy companies are excited and hopeful about the carbon dioxide related rules and regulations. The companies that make equipment for power generation and delivery are working with government representatives on the Smart Grid to reduce and manage energy consumption. This “crisis” means that a lot of money will be spent on new equipment. They sound like kindred spirits, to me.
It doesn’t seem possible, but their grasp on reality, which was extremely bad to begin with is slipping further. They’ve been spouting lies for so long that they no longer know what truth is. It hardly seems fair to fight them anymore, but fight them we must. They are losing what they pathetically call a “street fight”, which has actually been an all-out war which they started, and somewhere within the deep recesses of what is left of their rational minds they know it.
Fire at will.
“They’re going to run attack ads in THE NEW YORK TIMES!!!
…
Do these nimrods have any clue? Someone needs to explain the concept of “preaching to the choir”.”
AH, but you see thats their mindset. The New York Times is THE authoritative paper, ergo anything seen in the NYT is more credible than anything seen anywhere else.
It’s the “appeal to authority” thing, which is all they know. Besides, if they place an advert in the NYT, then ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and even Fox will be talking about it. It lets them get their message out much in excess of the NYT delivery. The subesquent coverage by ABC, etc, can filter out the ridiculousness too to make it seem more rational. 🙂
What will the ad say…?
We are real scientists, really! Come on, don’t you believe me? Trust me! I’m telling the truth this time.
Paul R. Ehrlich, the discredited buffoon of fear mongering idiicy is now going to lead the charge against AGW skeptics?
Bring. It. On.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/5446/1972-Article-Unearthed-Worse-than-Hitler-Population-Bomb-author-Paul-Ehrlich-suggested-adding-a-forced-sterilization-agent-to-staple-food-and-water-supply
Anu,
Do you mean to imply that Moon’s religous beliefs make his journalists obtaining leeaked material bad, while the NYT’s obtaining leaked e-mails is good?
Or do you mean to imply that since Moon has an odd religion, that makes AGW true?
At this time; the more publicity, the better,
Bring it on.