Emails from “attack ad” science group posted

Readers may recall this story last week: Ad hoc group wants to run attack ads

Here’s an update from GlobalWarming.org by Myron Ebell

According to recently disclosed e-mails from a National Academies of Science listserv, prominent climate scientists affiliated with the U.S. National Academies of Science have been planning a public campaign to paper over the damaged reputation of global warming alarmism.  Their scheme would involve officials at the National Academies and other professional associations producing studies to endorse the researchers’ pre-existing assumptions and create confusion about the revelations of the rapidly expanding “Climategate” scandal.

The e-mails were first reported in a front-page story by Stephen Dinan in the Washington Times today. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has independently obtained copies of the e-mails.  A list of excerpts, with descriptive headlines written by me, can be found below.  The entire file of e-mails has been posted as a PDF and can be read here.

In my view, the response of these alarmist scientists to the Climategate scientific fraud scandal has little to do with their responsibilities as scientists and everything to do with saving their political position.  The e-mails reveal a group of scientists plotting a political strategy to minimize the effects of Climategate in the public debate on global warming.

Selected Excerpts.

Note that the descriptive headlines in italics are by me. The statements in quotation marks are excerpts from the e-mails.

Can we get corporate funding for some splashy ads in the NY Times?
Paul Falkowski, Feb. 26: “I will accept corporate sponsorship at a 5 to 1 ratio….”

But our ads will be untainted by corporate influence.
Paul Falkowski, Feb. 27: “Over the past 24 h I have been amazed and encouraged at the support my proposal has received from Section 63 and beyond. We have had about 15 pledges for $1000!  I want to build on that good will and make sure that the facts about the climate system are presented to a very large section of the public—unfiltered by the coal, oil and gas industries….”

What is it about the New York Times?  Aren’t Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman enough?
Paul Falkowski, Feb. 27: “Op eds in the NY Times and other national newspapers would also be great.”

Scientists should be effecting social and political change.
Paul Falkowski, Feb. 26:  “I want the NAS to be a transformational agent in America.”

Snow in Washington is anecdotal, but no snow in Vancouver is proof.
Paul Falkowski, Feb. 27: “…the coal, oil and gas industries (who, ironically, are running commercials on NBC for the winter Olympics, while the weather is so warm that snow has to be imported to some of the events.)”
Robert Paine, Feb. 27: “The beltway’s foolishness about climate change seems especially ironic given the snowless plight of the Vancouver Olympics.”
David Schindler, Feb. 27: “I’d add that Edmonton is near snowless….”

This is a political fight, and we’ve got to get dirty.
Paul R. Ehrlich, Feb. 27: “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.”

Top scientists adore Al Gore.
David Schindler, Feb. 27: “I recall an event at the Smithsonian a couple of eons ago that I thought did a great job, & got lots of media coverage. AL Gore spoke….”
Paul Falkowski, Feb. 27: “Al Gore has a very well written article in the NY Times.”

Forget the science, we want energy rationing!
William Jury, Feb. 27: “I am seeing formerly committed public sector leaders backing off from positions aimed at reducing our fossil fuel dependence.”

They’ll forget Climategate if an authoritative institution repeats the same old line.
Paul Falkowski, Feb. 27: “An NRC report would be useful.”
Steve Carpenter, Feb. 27: “We need a report with the authority of the NAS that summarizes the status and trends of the planet, and the logical consequences of plausible responses.”
David Tilman: Feb. 27: “It would seem wise to have the panel [writing the report] not include IPCC members.”
Stephen H. Schneider, Mar. 1: “National Academies need to be part of this….”
Stephen H. Schneider, Mar 1: “It is imperative that leading scientific societies coordinate a major press event….”

The last academic defense: It’s McCarthyism!
Stephen H. Schneider, Mar. 1: “…Senator Inhofe, in a very good impression of the infamous Joe McCarthy, has now named 17 leading scientists involved with the IPCC as potential climate ‘criminals’.  ….  I am hopeful that all the forces working for honest debate and quality assessments will decry this McCarthyite regression, and by name point out what this Senator is doing by a continuing smear campaign.  ….  Will the media have the fortitude to take this on–I’m betting a resounding ‘yes!’” [Note that Schneider has already sent this e-mail to the media asking for their help.]

To read all the e-mails that CEI has obtained, go to the PDF posted here.

Advertisements

104 thoughts on “Emails from “attack ad” science group posted

  1. “This is a political fight, and we’ve got to get dirty”

    I give them two thumbs up. They’ve achieved their goal. It makes me so happy I ultimately decided to go into engineering and not science.

  2. i don’t get why this is still possible… don’t they ever learn not to say this stuff in official foia-able emails?

  3. Amazing that this Falkowski fellow thinks a snowless Vancouver means something. We frequently have no snow in the winter.

    Having the Olympics on our North Shore mountains was always a gamble.

    What’s less of a gamble is that some scientists today will spew any old nonsense without having done some empirical research.

  4. Are these guys using drugs? They are getting close to UFOs and other conspiracy theories.

  5. I really really hope they do it. I also hope the AAAS and NAS endorse it to the hilt. And finally I hope reasonable people see through the hyperbole and finally see exactly who it is that is peddling this cr@p.

  6. I’m sure that these guys ae doing their campaigning in their own time..and not on the taxpayers dime.

    No doubt their pubilcly available timesheets, together with the audited accounts of the money spent from any research grants will show this clearly and unequivocally.

    Just in case anyone is so impolite as to have any doubts.

  7. Some quotes from Paul Falkowski

    – Regardless of the evidence, cell phones cause brain cancer.
    – One result is that fewer and fewer Americans want their children to be scientists.
    – I feel I must help us use our scientific expertise and prowess to push back against the wall of disinformation and lies that has come to be the common forum of what is the news and information flow.

    Wow, this is what the best scientist are today? Obviously, we all receive a big check from the fossil fuel industries, are here to deceive, we don’t care about the future of our children, we spread lies and disinformation.

    I am pro nuclear and shouting to anyone that will listen to switch from fossil fuel ASAP to nuclear if we are to survive and provide clean power to humanity.

    I have been documenting and searching for the truth for years, telling my two child about it all.

    I have help my children be aware of alarmist and understand that the real debate is not climate change, but energy.

    I feel personally attacked by many of these statements.

    Please let me know if you find anything on my blog that would show that I lie, being paid by big oil or there to deceive.

    Like you say, those people are afraid of their job.

    http://simonfiliatrault.blogspot.com/

  8. There’s that word again. “Transformational”. I don’t think it means what they think it means (with apologies to Inigio Montoya). When Falkowski, Erhlich and Schneider have served their purpose, Soros will discard them like a kleenex.

  9. Tsk, tsk, tsk …

    I sense a nightmare world ruled by scientists and a technological elite. But then, it’s been written about some time ago, hasn’t it?

    These guys really need to get out into the real world.

  10. Dear Myron

    A great piece which would be better without the descriptive headlines. The best thing about the Climatgate emails was just reading them and judging them for ones self.

  11. PS
    The Great Green House Conspiracy

    Is this the same Steven Schneider at about 6.30mins in. Was he telling the truth then?

    (Video originally seen on Watts)

  12. these activists are talking as if they own and control the national academy of science. and they probably do.

  13. Anybody got the email address for Big Oil. I need to get ahold of them and let them know I haven’t been receiving my checks. Maybe they’ve got the wrong address in their files.

  14. Paul Ehrlich’s book “The Population Bomb” was used as a first-year biology textbook in many colleges in the 70’s. He was responsible for poisoning the minds of a generation, and the repercussions have been evidenced in childlessness, abortion, Luddite-ism, “green” associated with self-hatred and self-abnegation.

    The damage he’s already done is really significant, seeing as he was wrong about everything — but he’s apparently not done yet.

  15. There goes snow in Vancouver again. Why don’t these jerks just say what they really mean… “Hey retards, if it’s warm it’s climate if it’s cold it’s weather. WTF do you not get about that?”

    To call these people scientists is a great disservice to real scientists, both past and present.

    The McCarthy line is really too much. What is it, Sourcewatch.org? Every bad word spoken against AGW and every suspected link to Big Oil is documented there – there’s even a page against Pielke Jr.

  16. What Section 63? Distribution and Repurchase of Securities? What are these climate scientistists into? Collusion monies with corporations 5 to 1? Don’t understand.

  17. I believe Inhofe has made a tactical error, he’s given them the opportunity to imply that the scientists are being persecuted for their beliefs, that’s what they’re putting out.

    They seem to be ignoring the fact that the science is in tatters because of obvious malfeasance and they clearly thing Mann shouldn’t have been investigated, not because they didn’t think there may have been malfeasance, but because to do so was giving in to the forces of evil.

    If I was working in climate science and was surrounded by these eco-zealots in senior positions I’d keep my head down and say I supported AGW else I suspect I’d be toast.

  18. So this is post-modern science in action? Thank goodness I’m old enough to have been a real scientist. This is enough to make it embarassing to admit to being a scientist.

  19. A Note to the IPCC…

    Global warming “has no impact on Himalayas” claims Wadia Director

    “According to the data for over 140 years available with a British weather observatory situated in Mukteswar (2311m) in Almora has actually revealed that temperature in that region witnessed a dip of 0.4ºC,” he said.

    Since 1991, the institute is monitoring the Himalayas extensively with focusing the glacial studies and last twenty year data has never witnessed a continual retreat. Sometimes, the recession rates have gone up but on an average the rate is very much safer, he added.

    http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/northindia/Global-Warming-has-no-impact-on-Himalayas-claims-Wadia-Director/Article1-515763.aspx

  20. So according to Falkowski, Hollywood, the government, and business should help them develop radio and TV programming which should be streamed into every school in America?

    Hmmm….creepy.

  21. As biologists I;m sure they’ll be aware of evolutionary dead-ends, especially when they’re so far up one.

    PS – Stephen M, no need to crusade on here (the A-word). It’s very off topic.

  22. Stunning! How can educated people be so appallingly dense? How naive to believe that this flimsy plan would not get blown at some point, and do even greater damage to the standing and reputation of the scientists involved. I bet their favoured journalists will be interested to see how they were going to be used.

  23. Bwahahaha Did anyone else catch Schneiders self deprecation? LMAO

    “Please don’t make me miss yet another prediction!@#$% I have to live with cooling to warming “flipflop” every day,”

    Bwahahah haha bwahahah

    Miss? The fool couldn’t hit the side of a barn door with a truck lol

  24. On Sat, Feb27, 2010 @ 6:16 pm Paul Flakowski wrote:

    “People who have an open mind are wondering about an absence of any coordinated and publicized response to recent anti GW advocates on the part of the mainstream scientific community.

    What people are those ? Most folks don’t think “GW” is that
    big of a problem, and a whole block of other people don’t
    think about it at all.

    He then wrote:

    Clearly a paid advertisement in the NYT will help us get our opinions out unimpeded.

    They will be selling their opinions of the science, but
    not necessarily saying that it’s opinions they’re handing out.

    As you read through the other National Acadamy of Science
    linkserv emails at

    http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/CEI%20-%20Climategate%20Reloaded.pdf

    You’ll see that the real target audiences for this publicity
    campaign will be power figures (politicians & corporate
    leaders) and opinion leaders (media reporters & editors) to
    set up a steamroller that quashes the pesky voices of the
    “anti GW” crowd once and for all time.

    How will they do it? By using their memberships in NAS as a
    badge of honor and a crutch, they’re going to sell the
    scare
    !

    The NAS members in the other Sections should feel cheapened
    by such antics.

  25. Bring it on, these guy have spent so much time shooting themselves in to foot, their now standing on their knees.They just don’t seem to understand that fear is a very short term motivator, and it quickly turns to anger. The more they try to scare people now, the more angry they are going to make everyone.

  26. Looks they have a mole inside.
    Falkowski – what a [self-snip], his own University says the NH snow cover has been reaching record extent.

  27. Also from Schneider..

    “enough is enough; lets put the country and planet first, and do it by credible reporting of our state of knowledge, not selective citation of information pushing one sided agendas.”

    Haven’t we been saying that for years? The man has been reading sceptic blogs.

    The hypocrasy is palpable

  28. These people are delusional. That is not hyperbole… delusional and dangerous.

    Warmer in Edmonton during an el nino? Wow… rocket science there… and I will never figure out how they have convinced themselves that their gargantuan funding, including massive oil industry dollars, can possibly be threatened by a few piddling dollars Exxon played around with over 10 years ago.

    Apparently when you’re well financed and pushing a load of BS virtually uncontested for two decades, it’s disheartening to see that people are not as stupid as you thought they were.

    These people make me ill. And that’s not hyperbole either. Physically ill at the thought that they have any sort of power or control, that they write crap that kids will be forced to read in school, that they have the funding to make stuff like their “science on pbs” scheme happen, and that they’re not currently institutionalized.

  29. Dr A Burns (23:58:38) :

    Are all the alarmist “scientists” in this group biologists

    ———

    Not real biologists. The new pseudoscience called Conservation Biology is the next link in this chain. This “crisis disciplne” – that’s what they call it -begins with the ‘no debate’ premise that everything is doomed and tailors everything to fit. Not exactly the objective scientific approach. Those are the people that ‘proved’ that highest global polar bear population in recorded history, with most subpopulations growing or stable, were shrinking and, for the EPA, endangered!

    Note that the population used most often for their media poster child is the one in Hudson Bay, the southernmost one in the world. Like focusing on the Antarctic Pensinsula or one of the chosen thermometers.

    Vast Conservation Biology industry interest in long term studies of the effect of climate change on whatever.

  30. So Ehrlich didn’t think it was enough to scare the *** out of one or two generations of worried young men and women, now he’s going to scare our kids, too! And the sad thing is that if the AGW scare delays the development of the poorest countries, it will delay the stabilization of their populations, too.

  31. This is a political fight, and we’ve got to get dirty.

    So, insults, lies, fraud, and intimidation are just the start? What’s left, Ben Salter in a Power Ranger™ suit popping us in the snoot until we recant?

    I can’t wait for the next dramatic episode.

    Popcorn, anybody?

  32. Charles, the comment below ,which I tried to post earlier is surely on topic ? The newspaper item is a blatant freebie for WWF . Please ignore this comment if you are still moderating the early morning post :)

    This item appeared in the UK “News of the World” and looks like it could have been “placed ” by the WWF . I have tried to comment on the piece but it seems to be tightly moderated. Dark deeds afoot.
    http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/green/749418/WWFrsquos-head-of-climate-change-answers-critics-who-claim-it-is-just-a-myth.html

  33. Paul Erlich was the darling of the social science faculty members when I was a university staffer in the early 1960s. It was not a comfortable experience when I said in a common room after reading his first blockbuster that I thought Erlich was an idiot. Time has proved me right and Erlich wrong, but for some reason his opinions still matter in those circles. Don’t those academics still in Erkich’s thrall ever observe what happens in the real and observable world over time?

  34. The staggering theme running through all of the emails is that science itself is under attack simply because other qualified scientists, – some perhaps more qualified to question their scientific data than they – have the ‘effrontery’ to question their papers on the single subject of global warming.
    When, in the history of scientific research, has it been necessary for scientific theory to be supported against a measured opposing viewpoint, by organised a major advertising campaign? can scientific data no longer be defended by the data itself ? Why do these people get so upset at many of their own kind having a different viewpoint? And why do they try to spread lies and obfuscation about the motives behind anyone who dares to question whether AGW is fact or fiction?
    A feeling of panic pervades throughout all their correpondence. They need to be careful otherwise they will lose their argument completely to a growing sceptical publiic who question their departure from the normally accepted procedures for presenting scientific research data.

  35. Those 15 contributors to this fiasco must be trying to distance themselves and fast before they are exposed and their research called into question.
    Or are most of them part of the 17 under investigation?

  36. NickB. (23:56:54) :

    “…The McCarthy line is really too much. What is it, Sourcewatch.org? Every bad word spoken against AGW and every suspected link to Big Oil is documented there – there’s even a page against Pielke Jr.”

    What is amusing about the McCarthy line was history has shown him to be essentially correct! There were Communists under the bed, Oh My If you want to meet them go to Cambridge MA. Wear a global warming denier shirt and they will be happy to scream in your face "When we take over, we will kill people like you…" i got that reaction from wearing a pro gun ownership shirt.

    If you want the Big Oil connections go to
    http://activistcash.com/foundation.cfm?did=166
    and check out the various Rockefeller foundations (Standard Oil money) and see how much they are giving WWF and Greenpeace, the favorite authors for IPCC peer reviewed reports.

  37. The staggering theme running through all of the emails is that science itself is under attack simply because other qualified scientists, – some perhaps more qualified to question their scientific data than they – have the ‘effrontery’ to question their papers on the single subject of global warming.
    When, in the history of scientific research, has it been necessary for scientific theory to be supported against a measured opposing viewpoint, by an organised major advertising campaign? can scientific data no longer be defended by the data itself ? Why do these people get so upset at many of their own kind having a different viewpoint? And why do they try to spread lies and obfuscation about the motives behind anyone who dares to question whether AGW is fact or fiction?
    A feeling of panic pervades throughout all their correpondence. They need to be careful otherwise they will lose their argument completely to a growing sceptical publiic who question their departure from the normally accepted procedures for presenting scientific research data.

  38. How is that Paul Ehrlich can be wrong about, well, everything, for decades and he not only has a job there appear to be some who still take him seriously?

    If Paul Ehrlich says the world is doomed then I’m confident there is nothing to worry about.

  39. Van Grungy (04:09:23) :

    http://inthesenewtimes.com/2009/11/29/1975-endangered-atmosphere-conference-where-the-global-warming-hoax-was-born/

    Must be mentioned again…”

    Thanks for the added info on the history of this hoax.

    However it actually started with Maurice Strong at the UN First Earth Summit in 1972 , Mead just took the ball and ran with it.

    “It is instructive to read Strong’s 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe. “

    http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html

    And then there is the Margret Thatcher connection to AGW http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

    The whole thing has had political roots right from the beginning, so it was never really pure science. Before 1972 there were several avenues of investigation as there should be but once the issue became a political football funding was directed at “politically correct science” Any other investigation had an up hill battle Exxon money or no Exxon money.

    One wonders if the “Exxon funding” of deniers was a political ploy given the Rockefeller – Exxon connections and the Rockefeller foundations – Greenpeace/WWF connections. This type of setup used to confuse the public has been used before.

    “…To further confuse the American people and blind them to the real purpose of the proposed Federal Reserve Act, the architects of the Aldrich Plan, powerful Nelson Aldrich, although no longer a senator, and Frank Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank, set up a hue and cry against the bill. They gave interviews whenever they could find an audience denouncing the proposed Federal Reserve Act as inimical to banking and to good government… “ http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

    Seems all is fair in love, war and politics.

  40. Hello Gail Combs ,but they only posted 9 comments. Other news items get replies in the hundreds, look at Christopher Booker’s work and that of James Delingpole on this side of the pond, Even the AGW fanatic Lean at the telegraph can muster 50 or so responses.
    The ads and placement of spurious news items has started and will be followed by a flood of watermelon comments on all blogs , just wait for the personal attacks too. Best wishes,Mack

  41. What is disconcerting is that these people actually seem to believe this BS

    “That is threatened by unbridled, well funded lobbyists for (in this case) the coal, oil and gas industries – that seek to make sure that all science about climate change is “uncertain” – and more recently “biased” in the reports from the IPCC.”

  42. Maybe it’s time to require a few psychology courses to get that degree in biology.

    Or not, this way is a lot more fun.

  43. It only takes one irrational and insane, err, very special person to get into power somewhere for him/her to then surround them self with equally, hmm, very special people.

    It’s the same for every organization, be it Greenpeace or IPCC, or, City Hall or Government.

    And these special people crave special attention and special care and special treatment.

    That’s exactly why society built special treatment and care facilities referred to as insane asylums.

    They were among the extreme activists back in the day, and they’re amongst the extreme activists today, go figure. And they band together still, throwing a group tantrum at odd times, how very cute. And still not caring about anything and anyone but themselves.

    Seen kooks for peddling bad science, and they go above and beyond not to have to fix their science.

  44. This jumped out at me……

    “David Schindler, Feb. 27: “I’d add that Edmonton is near snowless….””

    Since I live in Edmonton …..and it’s really not “snowless”…..I have a pretty strong opinion (negative) of David Schindler.

  45. Paul Falkowski, Feb. 26: “I want the NAS to be a transformational agent in America.”

    Nah, Paul, I think you just need your diaper changed.

  46. I’m afraid it was clear to me 15 years ago that science was 75% politics, so this is hardly surprising.

    When I accepted a PhD position I thought the project I was working on had some economic point, as many published papers said it did. I was therefore somewhat surprised that a practicing animal doctor pointed out quite forcefully that it was not………..

    I learned aged 21, that it might not ANY LONGER be the case that what was a problem, was still one. But it was still a great line for those grant applications.
    And no-one doling out the money was any the wiser………

    That’s life I’m afraid.

  47. I have just looked at David Schindler’s post in the CEI pdf where he states that Edmonton has been experiencing “shirtsleeve weather” in 2010 instead of “the usual -40 C”

    This is a lie. Here is average Minimum temperature data for Edmonton for the months of January and February:

    http://www.theweathernetwork.com/statistics/C02084/caab0103?ref=topnav_historical_statistics

    This shows an average Minimum temperature of -16 C for January and -13 for February. There is no such thing as a “usual -40”.

    Compare this with actual data for 2010 that shows an average Minimum temperature of -16.9 for January http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html?Prov=XX&timeframe=2&StationID=1865&Day=1&Month=1&Year=2010&cmdB1=Go

    and -14.5 C for February http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html?Prov=XX&timeframe=2&StationID=1865&Day=1&Month=2&Year=2010&cmdB1=Go

    So if anything, 2010 has been slightly colder than average not warmer. This is simply an outright lie by David Schindler when he says Edmonton has been having “shirsleeve weather”.

    Of course, David Schindler conveniently omits the fact that Edmonton was THE SECOND COLDEST PLACE ON EARTH on December 15th with a temeprature of -46.1 C. http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmonton/2009/12/13/12141366.html

    Dr. David Schindler has been caught in an outright lie in his email. I challenge Dr. David Schindler to explain himself.

  48. Actually, after looking closer at these “leaked emails”, I’m pretty sure they’re not genuine.

    These emails were written with the intent of people reading them. They are too complete, too large, too detailed. I highly doubt that the “authors” truly believe what they’re saying, since they know full well who is funded and by whom.

    Apparently the next phase of the game is to “leak” everything you want people to believe. We learn, from these emails, that the people involved seem to really believe that they are up against “well funded” groups? Yeah… not.

  49. Browbeating based on a priori deductions, in the style of Immanuel Kant. This the new scientific procedure.

  50. David Schindler> I’d add that Edmonton is near snowless and has been shirtsleeve weather for most of 2010 instead of the usual -40C

    Not sure what the scientific definition of “shirtsleeve weather” is, but how can this be taken seriously in any way with respect to climate change? Now AGW can produce a ~40C change without it being weather!

  51. Have they ever been to Vancouver? In the winter?

    Vancouver is on the Pacific Ocean. Snow is a very rare event in the city. The North Shore Mountains are notorious for rain wiping out any accumulated snow.

    If they can’t get basic facts right, what about all the other crap they peddle?

  52. Having just drifted over from Andrew Breitbart’s most excellent site bigjournalism, my 2c worth is this:

    Who reads the NYT these days?

    As long as these characters are not using taxpayer funds for these advertisements (and from the email excerpts it would appear they are not) they can plaster every 2nd page as far as I’m concerned.

  53. “David Schindler, Feb. 27: “I’d add that Edmonton is near snowless….””

    Like John Eddy, I too live in Edmonton and there was plenty of snow here on the 27th of February (and there’s still quite bit left to melt). I must say this is a bold faced lie from Schindler. Disturbing.

  54. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA…. lets asure the public that we are real life scientists an not advocates

  55. It was posted here on WUWT somewhere (don’t recall) by someone (don’t recall) who said he was a geologist and know any geologists who believed in AGW.
    The question is: who knows any biologists that don’t?

  56. oooops. Try again with Correction:
    It was posted here on WUWT somewhere (don’t recall) by someone (don’t recall) who said he was a geologist and DIDN’T know any geologists who believed in AGW! The question is: who knows any biologists that don’t?

  57. Sorry Chip, I missed your posts as I was in the commenting process. You made excellent comments regarding Schindler’s Edmonton “observations”. Says a lot about the kind of people we are dealing with here.

  58. “not investigating the scientists, all of whom were doing their jobs properly, sorting perspectives, data, analyses of data and how to proceed logically and
    forthrightly.”

    So they agree that what Jones et al were doing is OK for Climate Science and the other Sciences.
    They really are in a world of their own.
    These emails should go to the UK press so that the Public can see what Jones was doing is sanctioned by other Scientists.
    Talk about bringing Science in to Disrepute.

  59. “David Schindler, Feb. 27: “I’d add that Edmonton is near snowless….””

    Time to clean your glasses Doc. My sun-bathed, south-facing front yard near Edmonton’s downtown still has over a foot of snow with grass barely peaking-out at the front edge.

    Moreover, the “shirt-sleeve weather we’ve experienced this winter cost me 3 weeks of down-time because “Big-Oil” thinks it’s inhumane to work men outdoors when the temperature drops below -39C.

    To those of us who do work outdoors when it’s only -38C, Global Warming has proved a huge disappointment.

  60. @ 1DandyTroll (07:32:49) :”It only takes one irrational and insane, err, very special person to get into power somewhere for him/her to then surround them self with equally, hmm, very special people.”

    A propos of which, Peter Preston, ex-editor, writes in the Guardian calling for the climate messiah:
    ‘Wanted: an eco prophet.
    … the plain fact is that we surely need a prophet, not yet another committee. We need one passionate, persuasive scientist who can connect and convince – not because he preaches apocalypse in gory detail, but in simple, overwhelming terms. We need to be taught to believe by a true believer in a world where belief is the fatal, missing ingredient.’

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/07/climate-change-inertia-prophet
    And would the usual suspects be queuing up to preach holy war too ?
    Though I do like the “gory detal” pun …

  61. Or even, again, a revision of the last sentence in the article

    > in a world where belief is the fatal .. ingredient <

    Fatal to scientific method and real enquiry, as well as to many people all over the world.

  62. ””By P Wilson on March 8, 2010 at 9:48 am – Browbeating based on a priori deductions, in the style of Immanuel Kant. This the new scientific procedure.””

    P Wilson,

    Any mention of Kant sends my antenna to alert mode.

    Kant’s explicitly self stated purpose for writings such as “Critique of Pure Reason” was to unseat reason (in the Enlightenment) and re-establish religion (specifically Christianity) to its authority position of the late Roman Empire & Middle/Dark/Midieval Ages.

    The antedote against Kant is to read his “Critique of Pure Reason”. It is an outright full frontal assault on reason. It uses a “trick”, but it is not Mann’s nature trick.

    John

  63. “David Schindler, Feb. 27: “I’d add that Edmonton is near snowless….””

    Schindler is one of David Suzuki’s dear friends and a long time collaborator is the eco-crisis industry in western Canada.

    Great to see his name pop up here, though it is no surprise.

    There are more rotten apples at the University of Alberta and at the University of Calgary, especially in the so-called Conservation Biology gang. Don’t believe anything you hear about grizzly bears in Alberta – that phoney crisis is one of their most lucrative enterprises.

    Hopefully the light shining on bogus climate ‘science’ will get to Conservation Biology in due time.

  64. Correct me if I’m wrong but I got the impression that these emails were the result of an FoI request, not leaked.

    DaveE.

  65. From the longest email I have read for a while – a fatal spelling mistake (an r) places this controversy right up there with the selection of the safe schools czar, especially if you read point one below directly after the 1st sentence.

    “OK, now to what I think needs to be done by us and others. Fist, we need to push getting a restoration of civility and honest discourse so the national business can proceed without the poisons of Inhofe and his ilk. We need several groups to do that:
    1-Senior respected members of congress–know any? Suggest it to them. I have.

  66. Ah yes, David Schindler – a self-appointed green saviour. Had experience with him in Alberta back in the 90’s. Another celebrity scientist who loves to see his name in the news and an adoring public bowing and scraping before his superior intellect.

    These celebu-scientists have vast (but fragile) egos marked by contemptuous attitudes toward those outside their inner circle. They seek the media spotlight, loving the public attention until their science is questioned. Then they turn into humble scientists in service to the pursuit of knowledge.

  67. @CodeTech ‘These emails were written with the intent of people reading them. They are too complete, too large, too detailed. I highly doubt that the “authors” truly believe what they’re saying, since they know full well who is funded and by whom.’

    You’re assuming they’re rational, and therefore use normal logical reasoning.

    Take a look at their track record, it’s filled with narcissistic behavior with a flare for paranoid schizophrenia and a large portion of megalomania.

    Unquestionably right, and a big evil conspiracy that is out to destroy ’em, and their preferred organization ought to have all the power to be able to make all the hard choices that is needed to save everyone from an ever ensuing catastrophe…. and an ever present evil conspiracy.

    Special people need special treatment, or pitchforks to keep ’em at bay.

  68. johnnythelowery (10:34:36) :

    oooops. Try again with Correction:
    It was posted here on WUWT somewhere (don’t recall) by someone (don’t recall) who said he was a geologist and DIDN’T know any geologists who believed in AGW! The question is: who knows any biologists that don’t?
    ————
    Reply:
    I’m one but not the only one.
    Really, geologists are too smart (or well-educated or “grounded”?) to fall for AGW. They know the earth has seen CO2 levels much higher than humans could ever drive ours, and so wouldn’t this “tipping point” the Warmers are always screaming about already have happened?

    You betcha.

    So anybody with a thimbleful of logic can figure out AGWers are a lost cause, along with their movement and religion. Leave it to a bunch of biologists who know nothing of earth’s history to embrace it like they do.

    Oh, those universities that do offer courses in “climate science” usually group it together with geography. Not that geography doesn’t have a place, mind you, but that should put “climate scientist” in perspective.

  69. This was posted by Mia Nony after Dr. Ball’s latest article in Canada Free Press. It is Brilliant . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~”Anyone simultaneously following the development of politicized science and the science of politics has by now realized that there are times when the two are inexorably intertwined.

    Heaviest Element Yet Known to Science Discovered

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California has now identified with certainty the heaviest element known to science.
    The new element, Pelosium (PL), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
    These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
    Pelosium is inert, and has no charge and no magnetism.
    Nevertheless, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.
    A tiny amount of Pelosium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.
    Pelosium has a normal half-life of 2 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a biennial reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
    Pelosium mass will increase over time, since each reorganization will promote many morons to become isodopes.
    This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
    When catalyzed with money, Pelosium becomes Senatorium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Pelosium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.”
    Posted by Mia Nony on 03/08 at 02:24 PM | #

  70. RichieP (11:34:31) :

    “Peter Preston: …We need to be taught to believe by a true believer in a world where belief is the fatal, missing ingredient.

    Hugs don’t work? “Whaaa, life is too difficult, whaaaa – it’s not fair, whaaaa! I want my bottle, whaaaaa.”

    It appears Mr. Preston has looked at his own existence and into his own mind and found them “wanting”.

  71. They’ll forget Climategate if an authoritative institution repeats the same old line.

    If they believe this then they not only have a deficiency of scruples they are also dumb.

  72. I am hopeful that all the forces working for honest debate and quality assessments….

    working for honest debate—that couldn’t include Al Gore, ‘Al… baby’

  73. David Ball (20:23:34) :
    This was posted by Mia Nony after Dr. Ball’s latest article in Canada Free Press. It is Brilliant .

    You have a gift, sir, for understatement.

  74. Schwarze Tulpe (10:24:17) : “‘David Schindler, Feb. 27: “I’d add that Edmonton is near snowless….”‘

    “Like John Eddy, I too live in Edmonton and there was plenty of snow here on the 27th of February (and there’s still quite bit left to melt). I must say this is a bold faced lie from Schindler. Disturbing.”

    But Swindler’s statement is NOT a lie. He didn’t say “Edmonton is near snowless.” He merely said he would add that verbiage. And it’s true; he certainly would.

  75. Bill Tuttle (01:25:50) :
    David Ball (20:23:34) :

    “This was posted by Mia Nony after Dr. Ball’s latest article in Canada Free Press. It is Brilliant .”
    “You have a gift, sir, for understatement.”

    I think Mia Nony deserves a Nobel Prize.

    In …. litterature.

Comments are closed.