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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
Mack (03:30:49) :
“…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
Many of the comments indicate the readers are not swallowing the garbage anymore. NICE
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.
For Biologists suicide IS painless.
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.
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
They could have trucked snow from Florida to Vancouver.
Thanks Gail. Now I know month about Month. Thanks
Mo’ about Mo
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They are behaving like politicians.
At this point, with more e-mails leaked. I’m starting to suspect…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29
“Conservation Biologist” and the “Crisis Discipline” are described here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservation-biology/
It’s amazing that such fields can arise in science with nobody really raising an eyebrow.
I am also from Edmonton. We have 15 cm of snow on the ground and this after a week of +4 C temperatures and no snowfall events since David Schindler made his untruthful comment on February 27.
Proof here: http://www.theweathernetwork.com/snow/snowab
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.
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.
Browbeating based on a priori deductions, in the style of Immanuel Kant. This the new scientific procedure.
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!
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?
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.