By Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts
They are mad, maybe not the crazy kind of mad scientist, but mad nonetheless. When people are mad, sometimes good judgment goes out the window.
The Guardian published a fascinating “open letter” from AAAS, signed by 250 biologists, anthropologists, neuroscientists, etc. in defence of climate science.
So far, it has not gone over too well. Even Andy Revkin at the NYT Dot Earth blog points out that:
“The letter has a defensive tone that hasn’t served scientists particularly well in the past…”
Revkin also notes the fact that even the AAAS deputy editor himself tried to tone it down in a companion editorial:
The scientific community must recognize that the recent attacks stem in part from its culture and scientists’ behavior.
Of course, we, the great unwashed public, can’t read either the original letter nor the editorial at AAAS, since both are hidden behind the great paywall of science. We have to rely on the Guardian and NYT to give us mere mortals snippets of wisdom issued from on high. What a great way to “get the word out” to people you are condemning. Yes, “we’ll make them pay”.
In addition to the condescending tone, the use of the d-word, and the lack of open access to an “open letter” and companion editorial, the letter was so poorly written, that we thought we would pitch in and lend them a hand. Italics are their writing. Plain text interspersed are our suggestions.
We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts.
A better way to word this would be : “We apologize for the bad behaviour of our colleagues, and recognize that the public is well educated and aware.
Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modelling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them.
Should read : “We recognize that the process is broken, and we appreciate the help of the public in correcting our errors.”
And then there’s this howler.
When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.
Should read: “We recognize that a few treemometers in Yamal, and particularly tree YAD061, aren’t really representative of the global climate for the past millennium and therefore a solid basis to overturn whole economies. We’ll fix that right away.”
For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution).
That paragraph should be cut completely. Implying that anyone who criticizes you is a “flat earther creationist” is not going to win any converts. Insulting the customer is a really poor idea.
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.
Very bad idea to compare the customers, aka the referenced “all citizens”, to holocaust deniers. That is a total non-starter.
Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
Should read : “Few, if any, of us are climate scientists, but some of us did see Al Gore’s film. We talked about it over lunch.”
The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
Should read : “Wow, none of knew that it was the snowiest decade on record in the Northern Hemisphere, until we read it on WUWT.”
We also call for an end to McCarthy- like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.
Should read : “We promise to see the doctor about our paranoid delusions.”
All in all, this letter is a PR train wreck. Then there’s the signatories.
Since it is common to see the “but he/she is not a climate scientist” argument used against people that offer views differing to “the consensus”, here are the impeccable climate science credentials of the first 20 signatories :
Robert McC. Adams – Division of Social Sciences, UCSD
Richard M Amasino – Biochemist, UW Madison
Edward Anders – Geologist, University of Chicago
David J. Anderson – Biologist, Cal Tech
Luc Anselin – Geographer, ASU
Mary Kalin Arroyo – Biologist, University of Chile
Dr. Berhane Asfaw – Palaeoanthropologist, Rift Valley Research Service
FRANCISCO J. AYALA – Professor of Biological Sciences, UC Irvine
Dr. Ad Bax – Physics, NIH
Anthony Bebbington – Professor of Nature, University of Manchester
Gordon Bell – Computer Pioneer
MICHAEL VANDER LAAN BENNETT – Neuroscientist, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Jeffrey Bennetzen – Geneticist, University of Washington
May R. Berenbaum – Entomologist, UIUC
Overton Brent Berlin – Anthropologist, University of Georgia
Pamela Bjorkman – Biologist, Cal tech
Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn – Biologist, UCSF
Jacques Blamont – Astrophysicist
Michael Botchan – Biochemistry, Berkeley
John S. Boyer – Marine Biosciences, University of Delaware
After the first 20 names, they are batting 0.000. If anyone cares to go through the rest of the list and report, please pitch in.
Anyone that continues to defend the science either has not read the emails or simply does not understand how proper science is supposed to be done.
For example, there’s this “you can’t be serious” Briffa quote from McIntyre’s recent presentation at Trinity College:
” In the absence of a substantiated explanation for the decline, we make the assumption that it is
likely to be a response to some kind of recent anthropogenic forcing. On the basis of this
assumption, the pre-twentieth century part of the reconstructions can be considered to be free
from similar events and thus accurately represent past temperature variability.”
You can’t be serious….
For the inevitable griper that will be upset about the use of the phrase “mad scientist” in jest in our satirical piece, I’ll point out that even scientists themselves make use of the same image:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/wisc/images/090925_Shindig.PNG
At Columbia, home of GISS no less.
Absolutely substance free!
Well……what would you expect? If anything och anyone is or are in “denial” this is it!
I really pity them to be so totally isolated from reality.
Here’s the version as printed in Science…(it is accompanied by this photo of a lone polar bear on ice… http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4095333-the-last-polar-bear.php )
Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.
Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.”
For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:
(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.
(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.
Much more can be, and has been, said by the world’s scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un restrained burning of fossil fuels.
We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.
Just read the caption for the bear photo at istockphoto.com …
“A polar bear managed to get on one of the last ice floes floating in the Arctic sea. Due to global warming the natural environment of the polar bear in the Arctic has changed a lot. The Arctic sea has much less ice than it had some years ago. (This images is a photoshop design. Polarbear, ice floe, ocean and sky are real, they were just not together in the way they are now) ”
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4095333-the-last-polar-bear.php
A fake photo for fake outrage! How apt.
http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/list-of-signers.html
I signed it. Waiting for my confirmation 😉
Same photo but with a penguin!
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=3726704/
Focusing on one area of study to the exclusion of all others is madness.
Making your science rather than following where it takes you is madness.
Listening to Al Gore our saviour is madness.
Politicians following these scientists studies and contributing to only one outcome is madness.
Put Anthony in a room with Al Gore for one week would be madness as well. Sorry Dude!
Well, if anyone doubted the loss of integrity in science today this letter will convince the fence sitters that being a “team player” and “protecting your pay check” triumph over the Scientific Method.
Thanks Marc.
“One U.S. senator has called 17 prominent climate scientists criminals”..must be the paranoia speaking….
What a joke. See my post on this here:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=3628
Cheers,
Simon
well the last polar bear better start getting used too walking as the artic ice is getting back to normal. and I bet the bears keep saying why did al Gore tell us you better take up swiming lessons.
I forgot to mention the TIMING of this letter. It just in time for the Congressional hearing on the EPA findings and before a vote on Cap and Trade. This means the letter is nothing but a political move and that is why it is behind a paywall. It is not really addressed to the unwashed masses or the skeptics but to the senators in the US Congress. The paywall is to keep regular citizens and scientists from seeing the letter and commenting before Congress votes on Cap and Trade.
As I said previously it cements my disgust with present day scientists and reinforces my reasons for dropping my membership in the American Chemical Society (pro-CAGW). If this is an example of Scientific Integrity I want nothing to do with it. I am ashamed I am a chemist, I am ashamed of Purdue University where I got my degree, and I am ashamed of the American Chemical Society despite thirty five years of membership.
Thankfully the number of people who view this letter as making perfect sense are not the majority.
However, there’s no telling how this might change. Will the current AGW movement fade away, or grow with a new generation of people?
One way of the other, there needs to be a better way to interact with the green movement than simply waging cultural war.
It is complicated because there’s at least two sides to the green movement: one is a regressive “noble savage” ideology which ties in with anti-capitalist, anti-industrial, anti-modern sentiments, and the other is a progressive “whole world” vision where we deal with the problems of living in a world that is fragmented by poverty, disease, dictators, incompatible ideologies, competing economies, etc., all within a technological material base that is struggling to keep up.
So perhaps a question is, how are these scientists healing the rifts?
Let’s assume climate change is real and happening — how is this knowledge going to heal the rifts? How does it fix the problem of dictators in Africa? How does it fix healthcare in ageing western economies?
Maybe we have been “denialists” about their findings. But are they not also guilty of something, namely,
of being fixated with their own speciality?
“For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution).”
There are no profits in these theories… Let me know when we have a market based on trading evolutionary credits…
Well, if there was a place for anti-signatories, I’d sign it in a heartbeat. Even put down my “credentials”, which would trump most of the first signatories listed. A political statement deserves an anti-political response.
They must really be feeling the heat (figurative, not literal), but after seeing the Climategate emails and other documents, it would be upsetting to find yourself on the wrong side of the issue.
“Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.”
Really? Society has just two choices? First, let us examine the two “choices” provided.
1. “Ignore the science” (or “Heads in Sand”). the problem is, no one is doing that, so it’s simply a straw man. Instead what they are calling “the science” has been both exposed as exaggerated, and even fraudulent, as well as robustly refuted.
2. “Act now in the public interest” (or “no delay”). So we must now act on the basis of, “the science” which has been exposed as both faulty and fraudulent? And this is in the public interest? It sounds a little like the sleazy used car salesman, fearing the customer is finding out the car he’s trying to sell them is a lemon is trying to “close the deal” quickly. Gee, I think we’ll pass, thank you very much. Nice try.
That “letter” is an embarrassment. How anyone could possibly sign it is beyond me.
Perhaps a letter in response from skeptics/climate realists is in order.
Circle the wagons.
The section condemning threats of criminal prosecution is notable. It was the alarmists who first started the notion of subjecting skeptics to Nuremberg-style prosecution. And Heidi Cullen’s proposal regarding yanking of credentials from meteorologists who don’t drink the kool-aid is still fresh in my mind.
They said: “We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association”
————-
Reply: No, the threats of criminal prosecution aren’t based on innuendo or guilt by association. If these “climate scientists” have fudged the data, suppressed open dissent, and stifled alternative viewpoints, and in the process pushed energy policy in directions that have caused foodstuff shortages in underpriveleged countries that have caused death by starvation, then they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The same applies to economic policy, such as the laughable stance the EPA takes on carbon dioxide. Criminal behavior deserves criminal justice. And that’s no “threat”… that’s a promise.
“Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: ”
Only if someone can get their theories published, which the Climate-Science cabal makes difficult-to-impossible.
Einstein wasn’t blackballed for thinking outside the orthodoxy.
Interesting that they didn’t mention that errors have been pointed out by the very people they are condemning.
The whole thing smacks of trying to fool the same people into thinking everything is OK.
It has a funny side, but it’s still a complete insult and only makes their position much worse.
I think the letter translates as, ” Our opinions are correct and you must trust us and stop listening to anybody else and do what we want NOW.” In relation to their demands, I believe that King Phillip II of Spain when tasked with the slowness of assembling the Spanish Armada said, ” In matters of great import, one must move with feet of lead.”
Colour me incredulous about the faith of the AAAS.
Is it just me, but aren’t most of the signers just old white guys, thus discrediting the whole exercise?
“When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action.”
We may be but a simple mob, but we realize, given that human experience amply demonstrates it, that nothing is ever dead-certain. Our demands are therefore not as impossible to acheive as you seem to think. The mad scientists of the world should realize that we, your “naive political assailants”, only demand:
You must at least have some evidence before you try to shape policy that will deeply affect us and our future generations yet to come. This evidence is not to include those things which have already been amply shown to be doctored, computer modeled, or even outright false. Which is to say that we demand that your projections come from _credible_ scientists and institutions thereof.
We demand this because when someone says that we should act without evidence, it is the same as saying that society should spare no expense nor ever admit the possibility of error.
Heh, not one word about climate sensitivity to CO2. Were there no climatologists involved in writing the letter?
=====================
The strength of this letter is that all signers are members of the US National Academy of Sciences. These are the elite of the elite. I don’t know if any climate scientists are members. Often, when there is controversy, the President calls for a study from NAS, and that has great credibility and independence.
I’ve been blogging about this on the Guardian. It’s a pretty poor attempt, and has given so many hostages to fortune that it is clear it hasn’t been thought out. Firstly they clearly accept that “deniers” are persecuting climate scientists, and that we are a well-funded, well- organised shills for big industry and big energy. There’s a certain naive arrogance there, what is surprised that “scientists” appear to be being routed by a rag-tag army of retirees and interested people from other disciplines. Why would anyone know as much about the science as the “scientists”?
Realclimate has managed to get this message over, and I suspect none of these scientists have taken the time to read WUWT, Roger Pielke, both, Climateaudit, the bishop and many others, if they had they would soon be disabused of two facts.
(1)The people on these blogs are highly knowledgeable about the topic and the scientific topics around it;
(2)That by and large, alarmists are met with courtesy if they come on these blogs and disuss the science.
I pointed out to the bloggers on the Guardian that supporting this, frankly wimpish, petition they had brought into play two other petitions that realclimate had pooh-hooed because they weren’t all climate scientists, that it the OISM and the Senator Minority Committee petition, one signed by 31,000 scientists and the other by 700 scientists, many of them eminent in the climate sciences.
Gail Combs says:
May 7, 2010 at 3:40 am
“Well, if anyone doubted the loss of integrity in science today this letter will convince the fence sitters that being a “team player” and “protecting your pay check” triumph over the Scientific Method.”
Well said. We had the same thing in the UK after Climategate – a whole bunch of scientists signing something similar. I know some of them.
I’ve been a reader for about a year now of this climate blog and others (voraciously consuming all the wonderful discussions) – thought I don’t usually post, but as one of the non-scientist ‘lay people’ this open letter is addressed to I felt I needed throw in my two cents.
I am infuriated by this letter…I almost don’t know where to begin. Where have these people(scientists) been? I sat for a long time thinking of more to say but can’t collect my thoughts beyond this – I’m insulted, and very upset that we don’t have an advocate in the MSM who would tear this letter to shreds as you two have done.
Think also about the effect this will have to further polarize uninformed scientists and the public – if there are so many who are so oblivious as to sign this, then there are probably more who will read this, in Science perhaps, and who will then shut themselves off even further from debate and transparency with the ‘ignorant, politically driven masses’ the letter seems to be addressed to.
Just a few parting phrases and I’m done – I ask these 250 scientists, do these mean anything to you?
“..no statistical integrity..” (US gov. report on mainstream climate science, specifically Wahl Amman, if I remember right)
“…no stastically significant global warming in 15 years..” (Phil Jones…now he IS (or was) a climate scientist, unlke these 250 jokers)
“..even if we have to redefine what the peer reviewed literature IS.” (That sounds open and transparent to me. Glad we can trust the process.)
Isn’t this what they said for Eugenics, I mean they had a consensus for that one too, and look where that one got them WW11 NAZIs!
Well, all this does is prove once again that, far too often, as the education level reaches the level where the cranium achieves that perfect egg shape it only serves to facillitate the insertion of said cranium into the rectum.
Anthony has a complaint about they are not “climate scientists”.
Well, but reading it, they consider themselves being “climate change scientists”.
“The vast majority of the signers are climate change scientists who work at leading U.S. universities and institutions.”
Seems to be a new species, even more knowledegable about how evil climate change negatively influences their fields of expertise.
You could have titled this thread: Refurbishing the Consensus
From the Science editorial:
…Carl Sagan’s warnings are especially apt today: “We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” “This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”
I guess it is more than obvious that none of these people stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS ACCUSED OF MCCARTHYISM
Climate change experts face a “McCarthy-like” persecution by politically-motivated opponents, some of the world’s leading scientists have claimed.
In a letter published in the journal Science, more than 250 members of the US National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Prize laureates, condemned the increase in “political assaults” on scientists who argue greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet.
The ‘climategate’ scandal and mistakes by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have led to a surge in attacks on climate scientists around the world.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7686079/Climate-change-deniers-accused-of-McCarthyism.html
@MarcH says:
May 7, 2010 at 3:34 am
“A polar bear managed to get on one of the last ice floes floating in the Arctic sea.
—————————————————————————————-
Here’s a real beauty, as white and fluffy as it gets:
“But although the bears look frightened, huddled together in the centre of the iceberg..”
“If she was able to leave her baby, the mother would probably have survived but our guide was quite pessimistic about the survival of the cub, who probably drowned,” he said.”
“Some of the members on our trip were in despair. They wanted to take the bears with us and bring them to the nearest land which was obviously impossible.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7078673/Will-polar-bears-make-it-back-to-shore.html
..and back to reality, attack of the peek-a-boo-bear (thank to the link-poster from Tips & Notes):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alaskapodshow/sets/72157604456019482/show/
A Polar bear stole my tripod:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7588680/Polar-bear-steals-tripod.html
May 7 in Colorado. We had yet another blizzard last night, followed by a hard freeze. Winter started here the first week in October.
Good day to make some global warming jokes at work.
Without his imagination, into the dustbin of history, the socialists now assumed to be reactionary environment. The flag is just environmentalist, important and urgent, but this policy against the development, no. Socialists want to destroy our way of life.
The M’s (from the links kindly provided by the Guardian)- batting average hasn’t really improved.
Mabogunje, Akin L, Foundation for Development and Environmental Initiatives-“arguably one of the best known geographers and social scientists in Africa”
Malone, Thomas F, North Carolina State University- He left a tenured faculty appointment at MIT in 1955 to join The Travelers Insurance Companies where he went on to become Senior Vice President and Director of Research.
Manabe, Syukuro, Princeton University – Meteorologist
Marcus, Joyce, University of Michigan-Professor of Anthropology and Curator of Latin American Archaeology.
Massey, Douglas S, Princeton University – Sociology,
McWilliams, Jim C, University of California, Los Angeles – Louis B. Slichter Professor of Earth Sciences – Applied Mathematics
Medina, Ernesto, Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research – Plant Biology
Melosh, Jay H, Purdue University – Geophysics – Research interests: Ramifications of impact cratering, planetary tectonics, and the physics of earthquakes and landslide
Meltzer, David J, Southern Methodist University – Anthropology/Archaeology
Michener, Charles D, University of Kansas – Entomology
Miles, Edward L, University of Washington – International Relations/Comparative Politics
Mooney, Harold A, Stanford University – Plant Biology
Moore, Peter B, Yale University – Biophysical Chemistry
Morel, Francois M M, Princeton University – geochemistry
Mosley-Thompson, Ellen, Ohio State University – Geography
Moss, Bernard, National Institutes of Health – Genetic Engineering, viruses
Munk, Walter H, University of California, San Diego – oceanography
Myers, Norman, University of Oxford – ecology
The only people in denial are the taxpayer-funded jerks who wrote and signed the letter.
Heads up, scientists:
Arrogance and condescension towards those who pay you very well is not going to work out so great for you.
If you boys and girls in lab coats think you are unaccountable to mere citizens because you are academics with tenure and peer review, think again.
Produce bogus garbage and try to ram it down our throats based on transparent appeals to authority and expect push back.
Act like reactionary twits when reasonable questions are asked, and you are only painting yourselves into corners.
Great article, but I have one small criticism. You should remove the line about “flat earth creationists”. It is hard to take you seriously when you complain that you’ve been insulted by insulting someone else.
Always knew there were good reasons why I dropped my membership in the AAAS. Actually, I dropped it because of their pro AGW stance. I did not want to be associated with intellectual fraud.
They said: “We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association”
They also said to put fossil fuel execs on trial for crimes against humanity. Greenpeace knows where we live. James Cameron wanted to shoot us. One of the Hockey Team wanted to take auditors down a dark alley, presumably not to politely discuss how to do PCA properly.
But we’re supposed to trust them because they’re climatologists. Well, not all of the signatories, but that’s science by consensus for you. The Grauniad article mentions there were 255 signatories supporting computer generated thermageddon, or SimScience as I prefer it. 255 is FFh in machine terms, so they’ve perhaps subconsciously marked their letter already.
Now back to doing important climate related work, like providing iStock with the last lettuce on an ice flow.
The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
Fact: both NOAA and MET blew the winter forecast. NOAA, strangely enough, got it wrong by a perfect negative image.
Fact: A lot of us here on WUWT did get it right, watching the hopscotch effect hemisphere winter to hemisphere winter.
We could see what was coming, and we did this with the oldest conversation in man’s history: “How’s your weather?”
AGW is losing due to a deep-seated human behavior that will not go away.
Simple English translation of their letter.
“We realize our decade long ride on the Fame & Gravy Train is compromised so we will say anything, tell any lie, make anything up to keep our entitlements rolling in.”
“We like going to Bali to be interviewed on national TV”
Anthony can I buy one of those Treemometers from the Weather Shop?
REPLY: We only have them in plastic, not wood. -A
However, in the 2008 Copenhagen Consensus, Nobel laureate economists ranked global warming mitigation dead last out of 30 major global problems.
Edited, the political correct climate appeal should read:
“We need money more than starving Africans. Please stampede your representatives into guarantee our future funding and our “Green” portfolios.”
Thanks, geronimo, for the OISM reminder. Here is the relevant petition language, signed by over 31,000 U.S. scientists:
The number of signers would be much greater if the OISM Petition were not limited to U.S. residents only.
All this letter does is bring shame and discredit to the NAS.
My kids whined like this in the back seat of the car. But they were better at it.
The Guardian’s darling Clegg lost the election and now they’re scrambling for excuses
They said: Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong.
They should have checked with their art department. Same ‘photographer’ who provided the heart rending image of the lone polar bear (or insert creature of choice) has also managed to capture an unusual solar phenomenon-
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4145255-at-the-south-pole.php
MarcH
Thanks for doing the M’s. Any more volunteers?
Note the high concentration of biologists and other life scientists. They’re particularly testy because they’ve been under the same kind of “assault” far longer than climate scientists. It’s been happening ever since the law of biogenesis was abandoned. A perfectly good scientific theory of descent with modification was turned into a narrative account of mud-to-man evolution and carried forward on a consensus bandwagon with religious fervor comparing its rigor with the law of gravity. When scientific explanations become narrative dogma the unwashed masses recognize this transition even when the scientific community by and large cannot. The same thing happened when a perfectly good scientific theory of greenhouse gases turned into a narrative account of how anthropogenic greenhouse gas generation will lead to disastrous consequences of epic proportion. What was once good science has become bandwagon dogma and once again the unwashed masses recognize this transition.
“For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category”
Whether the universe and the earth are that old, and whether we are here by evolution or not have got nothing to do with life and the future, risks etc. We are not going to devote trillions and potentially wreck our economies over whether something happened in the distant past. These guys need to get real.
But in fact, yes, some would say that assertions on origins are also underpinned by the same kind of groupthink and dogma as AGW.
[snip – labeling and inflammatory]
Gail Combs says:
May 7, 2010 at 3:58 am
Your point about the petition behind a paywall, the congressional hearing, the cap n trade bill and the timing…. Is spot on. The petition wasn’t to be read by us, the great unwashed, but instead is directed at the political elites for use as a political narrative.
MarcH says:
May 7, 2010 at 3:38 am
> Same photo but with a penguin!
> http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=3726704/
And that page’s caption is “Emperor penguin on a floating ice floe in the Atlantic ocean!” Arrggh! Lessee, I guess the penguin photo was shopped first, then the PB climbed up and ate the penguin before posing for its image.
It is sad, but only proves that the indoctrination in the school system and universities is working. The fact that so called scientists can no longer think logical thoughts or have new ideas and invention of their own, is more than sad. PC and group think will never give us new direction in scientific thought.
The battle against climate change nonsense is small change compared to the battle against liberty and free thought. What to do next is the burning question? These so called scientists on this letter are more to be pitied than sneered at. It is they who have a problem.
“We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular.”
Are Joe Romm’s attacks on Judith Curry counts as “political assaults on … climate scientists?”
Just asking.
So, translated into the language of the unwashed masses, here is what it sounds like:
Mommy, Jr won’t stop hitting me! Make him stop!
Mommy, LindySue pinched me first!
No I ddn! You did first!
Did not!
Did too!
Did not!
Did too too!
Did not for ever an ever an ever!
Chorus: “Mommmmmieieieieieieie
The steady hand of justice reaches back
…slap slap….
Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts
Comedy on WUWT. I here by nominate you for an award of high satire in the face of humbling stupidity.
On a bleak dismal morning, waiting for a flat tire to be fixed, that made my day. ROFL…My sides are still splitting over, “Few, if any, of us are climate scientists, but some of us did see Al Gore’s film. We talked about it over lunch.”
Thanks again.
Once again, a snow covered Washington does not prove it’s not warming, but one hot day, one hurricane and it’s GLOBAL WARMING!
Gordon Bell – Computer Pioneer
Hey, someone I know! Gordon designed some DEC’s best computers, systems that made my early career in software engineering very pleasant, interesting, and valuable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDP-10 Wonderful, wonderful system in ways that programmers who missed that era will never understand.
While I haven’t seen him in ages, I suspect I know at least as much about climate science as he does.
In other words, AGW is a fact until proven otherwise!
Oh and anything you can offer to show it’s not true? Doesn’t count.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7686079/Climate-change-deniers-accused-of-McCarthyism.html
Hey, if he didn’t use “Mike’s” nature trick and “Hide the Decline” then there wouldn’t be people actually having to check the results.
And didn’t some of the emails have physical threat wishes to an Australian climate Skeptic?
There is not a lot of learning from experience being demosntrated by the scientific establishment. It continues to pursue the idea that, “Our problem is that we haven’t explained ourselvesleves as well as we should have. Let’s try again.” No wonder polls show the growing belief that science and scientists are just another special interest.
This story made Yahoo news, and when I checked it, all the main comments were against AGW and these scientists.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100506/sc_nm/us_climate_science
The tide has turned. These scientists are upset because they fear losing their easy money. A cornered animal is the most dangerous. These “climate scientists” are backed into a corner. The only option is to find a new source of income or fight back. We know they will not deign to do actual work, it is beneath their dignity. So really their only option is to fight back. If we keep doing unbiased research, we will win this battle.
Don’t cry for these climate scientists. They will manufacturer a new scare. The 70’s was global cooling. The early 80’s was acid rain. The late 80’s, early 90’s was the ozone. Today is global warming. The future will have something else. I think it will be potable water because I’ve already seen how scare pieces on how man is ruining the water supply. The next battle can also be one by consistent unbiased research.
I’d like to start off with Pamela. Pamela, get your surveillance gear out of my van. 😉
Now, on to the program. This is too rich, I immediately went running to the fridge to see if we still had some cheese to go with all that whine, alas we are currently cheese-free.(I am not counting processed cheese, in which case we are loaded to the gills) Must be AGW’s fault.
I think they are sincere…But, what if, as climate, so things are changing, are really changing, as every time happends and should happend in our cyclic world. What if we are about to witness a revolutionary change in the way science is seen and expressed today. They themselves said we were about a catastrophic change; they smell already the smoke and are afraid of the fire. They themselves announced the next armageddon, however that fight it is not to occur in that legendary middle east field but closer. The so much feared Apocalypse (Greek: Ἀποκάλυψις Apokálypsis; “lifting of the veil” or “revelation”) is here, its tremors will provoke a Cataclysim (from the Greek kataklysmos, to ‘wash down’ (kluzein “wash” + kata “down”) which will wash down our faces and our eyes. Do not worry: You are not going to lose your jobs or your so dear grants; just adapt, open your eyes, and keep on living.
Bad things only happen when we oppose the will of our creator. Change your minds accordingly, search, ask yourselves what is there new out there that I would not accept easily, come on!, let´s see it, let´s study it!. We now have the internet, well, dig out all those issues forbidden by you up to now; open yourselves to a new view of the world!.
Laws have not changed, can not change, as God himself can not change what 2 plus two is, but the way to understand the universe, to comprehend it has changed and YOU HAVE NOT CHANGED YET.
You are not going to die…and don´t care about those who “care” after you…they are smelling the smoke too, and be careful, chances are they will change BEFORE you do it, so if you are a bit sensible about your finances, change!, that´s all.
Reminds me of medieval clerics determining whether a Witch should be dunked or not….
“To the Stake!”-but we oppose any one who criticizes We who are smarter than _they_
are….
Random thoughts this Am..
Bwahahahahaha…
How to put this? …it is not really in the interest of the “climate cabal” to bring up the issues of “special interests” or “dogma”. Do they really want to go there?
They missed an important qualifying phrase, let me add it “…and guilt by association [with each other]…}
A non-paywall version of the letter can be found here: http://www.pacinst.org/climate/climate_statement.pdf
As a previous commenter mentioned, the novel thing about this letter is that every signatory is a member of the National Academy of Sciences including 11 Nobel prize winners. Note that there are roughly 2000 total members of the NAS.
My rant to Revkin:
Andy, I’ve got to say that I’m tired of this stuff. I’m tired of being threatened. I’m tired of being made to feel like some kind of evil person because I have the audacity to doubt—or at least ask for some verifiable proof. I’m tired of being told to act now or else. I’m tired of hearing just how bad things will get, predictions that become more and more dire (and laughable) as the “great unwashed” wants action on more pressing and immediate problems in their lives (job, shelter, food). I have absolutely NO sympathy for cabal of climate scientists at all. They have done enormous damage to the field of science that will take years, perhaps decades to repair because instead of being objective, they became advocates for public policy. Some of those who signed the letter are scoundrels, some are fools, some are sheep, and all of them whine about “poor me” because the gravy train is leaving the station. They deserve everything they get because, when the shoe was on the other foot, they tried to do EXACTLY the same to those who dared to question them. McCarthy-like threats my ass. Oh yes, I’m also tired of being told, “Trust me.” Never again.
“We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts.”
In other words, the peasants are revolting, in both ways.
[snip -labeling]
OMG! Where to start… How about:
All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. “citizens”? “should understand”? “basic scientific facts“? How TOTALY patronizing and condescending!! BUT then they say: There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; So, are there – “basic scientific facts” or not? science never absolutely proves anything. Double OMG!! I’m “never absolutely” speechless, but I’m absolutely speechless! They are absolutely sure that they are never absolutely sure. PLEASE, somebody find out where they ALL went to school, I want to make sure my grandchildren DO NOT go there.
When someone says like another scientist? that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action,Well, in your omnipotent magnificence could you give us a hint – say 75-80% certain? it is the same as saying society should never take action.What? Is that just a guess or one of your “scientific facts” – – that are never absolute? For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. ABSOLUTELY!! – – – potentially – – – maybe – – – poses – – – some – – – unidentified risk – – – but, never absolutely – – – we think – – – in our collective omnipotence. Trust us…..
“climate change deniers”
Who denies climate change? The climate is always changing.
Will they ever learn?
“Few, if any, of us are climate scientists, but some of us did see Al Gore’s film. We talked about it over lunch.”
Wunsch, Emanuel, Pedlosky, Munk, Manabe, Schneider, Crutzen, Broeker.
These folks are all giants in the field of climate science, spread across atmospheric and oceanic dynamics and atmospheric chemistry. Your assertion that the folks who signed the list don’t know anything about climate science is absolutely wrong.
Wow, they’re up to 300. That’s more than 30,000 shy of the Oregon petition. The comparison is staggering. 1:1000. or 1000 ppm!…This should be fun.
This repulsive and ill-considered letter from my “colleague” scientists deserves to be thoroughly trashed, as publicly as possible. Thank you WUWT .
Its contents confirm ignorance, fear, arrogance, conformism, appeals to authority and paranoia; great qualifications for scientific work……..
Fortunately there are enough persons who dont need these sort of “scientists” to tell them what to think.
This is about creating fear and anxiety. Joe Romm asked how to “frame” the issue so people would become more nervous and compliant. Over stating future temps, melting, rising oceans etc means they are using diplacement for a technique. They are bed wetters and want to make others bedwetters afraid of the BIG Melt.
The fear is caused by reason of the gang of 250 knowing gubment is broke and the deficit is a monster. They want to make gubment worried about heat so they won’t stop funding research in terms of millions of dollars.
Any day now we reach the tipping point and the easy money dries up.
Get the money while you can. Keep them worried.
Anthony and Steven,
It is simply baffling to me that you make such an issue out of being called a “denier”. Your insistance on associating this term with the Holocaust are the only such references I have ever heard. Once again, your “science” blog leaves me speechless.
REPLY: Great, since you are speechless then we’ll hear no more from you on your petty issues like this -A
[snip- references a labeling and inflammatory comment which has been removed]
Always love it when the McCarthy reference is played. Its used so much people seem to completely ignore the fact that while McCarthy’s method’s may be questionable, history has now proven, beyond any doubt, that he was absolutely right. In fact, even in his day no one who actually was informed questioned it.. they just used McCarthy’s tactics and lack of tact as smoke and mirrors to obscure the fact that indeed, the soviets had a pretty massive formal presence in the US State department. So yes, quite fitting that these warmists play that McCarthy card here.
OT: Who Knew?
USA Today
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/05/icelands-eyjafjallajokull-volcano-bulging-slightly/1
“A Boeing 757 flying nearby observed a black plume at 421,000 feet up heading towards the southeast.”
OT but I see no correlation whatsoever between AMSU global temps at 600mb and ALL land (COLA) and SEA map temps UNISYS (except parts of central asia). Something ain’t right. Most COLA maps are showing dramatic cooling (see Americas), most of ASIA and Africa, mAybe im color blind… please explain someone!
“Few, if any, of us are climate scientists, but some of us did see Al Gore’s film. We talked about it over lunch.”
bwahaha!
The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
Should read : “Wow, none of knew that it was the snowiest decade on record in the Northern Hemisphere, until we read it on WUWT.”
another bwahaha!
Social Sciences, Biochemist, Biologist, Biological Sciences, Computer Pioneer, Neuroscientist, Geneticist, Entomologist, etc. (where are the computer modellors?)
————————————————————————————————-
So these 255 have heard of the 31,000 in the Oregon Petition??
janama says:
May 7, 2010 at 3:35 am
http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/list-of-signers.html
I signed it. Waiting for my confirmation 😉
plm – Sorry to hear that janama. Didn’t ANYONE ever tell you that you should read everything before you sign it! If they did and you’re still looking for confirmation, if worse comes to worst, it may well come in the form of even higher skyrocketing taxes/rates while you’re scrambling to make more excuses for more of your beloved IPCC/AAAS political science errors and positions.
David Archibald says:
May 7, 2010 at 4:21 am
Is it just me, but aren’t most of the signers just old white guys, thus discrediting the whole exercise?
————————————————————————————————
Excellent point Mr. Archibald!!
What they don’t get is that we HAVE looked at all the evidence and concluded that draconian taxes and limiting carbon dioxide emissions is NOT WORTH the risk of a slightly warmer climate.
There have never been ‘tipping points’ in the history of the Earth. Not to mention that warm periods have always been beneficial to life.
We understand the science. We understand the predictions. WE REJECT your proposals.
Paul Ehrlich and Stephen Schneider are on the list. Nuff said.
The NAS has 2100 members. There are 250 signatures on this letter.
That doesn’t sound like a consensus to me.
Hello,
Why hasn’t my comment been allowed through? I sincerely hope that this blog doesn’t censor comments…
Here it is again:
“Few, if any, of us are climate scientists, but some of us did see Al Gore’s film. We talked about it over lunch.”
Wunsch, Emanuel, Pedlosky, Munk, Manabe, Schneider, Crutzen, Broeker.
These folks are all giants in the field of climate science, spread across atmospheric and oceanic dynamics and atmospheric chemistry. Your assertion that the folks who signed the list don’t know anything about climate science is absolutely wrong.
Thanks,
Dan
Well, in waiting so long to approve the message you’ve effectively censored it since now it is far up the comment chain. I will repost it in a moment and I’d appreciate a prompt approval so that others can view and respond.
Thanks again,
Dan
“Few, if any, of us are climate scientists, but some of us did see Al Gore’s film. We talked about it over lunch.”
Wunsch, Emanuel, Pedlosky, Munk, Manabe, Schneider, Crutzen, Broeker.
These folks are all giants in the field of climate science, spread across atmospheric and oceanic dynamics and atmospheric chemistry. Your assertion that the folks who signed the list don’t know anything about climate science is absolutely wrong.
Here is the link to the complete letter:
http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/index.html
Would it not be great if some names from past scientific failures, Lysenko for instance, cared enough to protect the consensus to posthumously sign this tripe?
This is an obvious reference to the 2035 Himalyan glacier demise. But in fact, if you look at the IPCC statement, there is only an admission that a certain statement (only indirectly alluded to by paragraph number) was not adequately referenced, with no admission that the statement was wrong. WWF pamphlets undoubtedly contain many true statement, but they are still inadquate references for the IPCC, which is supposed to rely only on peer reviewed statements of fact. So the IPCC has only admitted an error of procedure, and has not in fact corrected its false claim.
In fact, the Guardian article you linked provides what appears to be the entire text of the statement, so this is not a real problem.
Most of the people appear to be legitimate scientists, whose field might lead them to be informed about climate, so I don’t see this as a big problem per se. There are, however, surprisingly few familiar climate names among the NAS signers. The only ones I recognized are Ellen Moseley-Thompson, Stephen Schneider, and Lonnie Thompson.
Dan,
I empathize that as a true believer you have to work hard to make sure nothing unsettles your faith, but the facts are that most of the signatories are not climate scientists.
Please return back to your denialism now.
Cheers,
janama says:
May 7, 2010 at 3:35 am
http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/list-of-signers.html
I signed it. Waiting for my confirmation 😉
__________________________________________________________________
So when the Western Economy crashes we can come back and pin the blame on you and the other 300 who state the IPCC report is correct.
Interesting that these childish whingers have raised the spectre of McCarthy, that bogeyman of the left famous for “outing” secret Marxists. Don’t think he ever prosecuted anyone in a court of law in front of a jury of peers however, which is the fate that seems to lined up for some climate scientists. Of course a court of law is designed to find the truth of the matter, so presumably the climate scientists are running scared of that.
I think the significance of some of these signatories will be lost on most people but not on their peers. For example, without doing a thorough check against my memory (I’m sure I missed a number of them), the people listed below have all published papers on evolution (evolutionary theory, origins of life, human evolution etc.). I do not believe this is a coincidence. Were all members polled or were only specific people asked to sign?
Asfaw, Berhane, Rift Valley Research Service
Ayala, Francisco J, University of California, Irvine
Donoghue, Michael J, Yale University
Falkowski, Paul G, Rutgers, State University of New Jersey
Frieden, Carl, Washington University School of Medicine
Futuyma, Douglas J, Stony Brook University
Lovejoy, Owen C, Kent State University
Lynch, Michael, Indiana University
West-Eberhard, Mary Jane, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
White, Tim D, University of California, Berkeley
Wu, Carl, National Institutes of Health
“For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution).”
Oh now I see. They think that their work represents some paradigm of science like the big bang theory or evolution. I wondered where their ego cam from.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22882
Fudging the line between a deliberate pre-meditated criminal fraud and an honest mistake
The latest wagon-circler is Dr. Judith Curry, an esteemed member of NASA’s Climate Research Committee for over three years. Now Curry has become a self-appointed apologist for the unethical and some say, fraudulent, conduct of Penn. State University’s climate professor, Michael Mann. Etc.
The “open” letter is 100% politics and 0% science. Then they project outrage at being treated politically. Hansen has been there many times before. Scientists are human beings who occasionally produce science and, as human beings, have a very long and repetitive history of getting themselves on the wrong side of science.
That letter reminds me of at least 3 skits from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail:” the elders scientifically determining who is a witch, the bridgekeeper tripped up on his own question about the land speed of a lark, and the black knight claiming his dismemberment is only a flesh wound and will bite your legs off anyway. I don’t think these folks are totally dismembered yet, but they do claim its “only a fleshwound” while promising to “have at you.”
“Gordon Bell – Computer Pioneer”
I’ll have to remove Mr. Gordon Bell from my list of most admired smart people. Well actually he wasn’t on the list, but if he goes on like this his chances of ever making it into the list are slim.
“Dan says:
[…]
Wunsch, Emanuel, Pedlosky, Munk, Manabe, Schneider, Crutzen, Broeker.
These folks are all giants in the field of climate science,”
Is that the “we gotta choose between efficiency and honesty” Schneider you’re talking about? Now then that’s a fine company.
@Dan says:
May 7, 2010 at 7:52 am
“Wunsch, Emanuel, Pedlosky, Munk, Manabe, Schneider, Crutzen, Broeker.”
Really, listing 8 people out of 250 or 300 was so important? Yeh, giants, huge!!! Did you catch the computer programmers, geographers and (lol) social scientists in the list as well? Even the Oregon petition has higher standards than that! Dan, you’re free to believe whatever you wish, I don’t have a problem with it, just as I don’t have a problem with my grandchild believing in Santa Claus. Maybe you can ask your “giants” when are they going to start publishing non-fiction.
P.S. Dan, the moderators are excused for poddy breaks and coffee runs from time to time. Chill, they don’t censor if one can express themselves in a sensible manner. They even have their very own collection of trolls they allow to post.
News tip:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/05/us-carbon-emissions-plunge-faster-than-the-economy.ars
US carbon emissions down 7%
Stefan says:
May 7, 2010 at 3:59 am
“…..So perhaps a question is, how are these scientists healing the rifts?
Let’s assume climate change is real and happening — how is this knowledge going to heal the rifts? How does it fix the problem of dictators in Africa? How does it fix healthcare in ageing western economies?”
__________________________________________________________________
That question was answered by Daivd Rockefeller.
“…But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” http://www.newswithviews.com/Cappadona/heidi5.htm
Rockefeller autobiography “Memoirs” page 405,”
Mr. Rockefeller writes: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents… to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world … If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as “the circle of commitment” – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.
“The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol’s principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol…” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
And the connection to David Rockefeller
“…Rockefeller has also for many years hosted annual luncheons at the family’s Westchester County Pocantico estate for the world’s finance ministers and central bank governors, following the annual Washington meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.[16] [# ^ Annual luncheons for finance ministers and central bankers — Memoirs, (p.293)]
The Chase Bank has also had a strong connection to the World Bank, as three presidents (John J. McCloy, Eugene R. Black, Sr. and George Woods) all worked at Chase before taking up positions at the international bank. A fourth president, James D. Wolfensohn, is also closely associated with Rockefeller, serving as a director of the Rockefeller Foundation, amongst other family-created institutions.[15] [ Chase connections to the World Bank — The August Review: The World Bank. (See External Links)]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller#World_Bank_and_IMF
Yes I hate citing Wiki but it was the quickest link I could find. So here is another link http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/David_Rockefeller
Hu-
See the previous post just prior to yours. Those names are among the most well-respected in the field of climate science. It’s interesting that you note you don’t recognize them. My guess is that these folks (perhaps with the exception of Steve Schneider) are typically quite conservative in making public statements on such issues (note: I know a couple of them personally)–they are longtime pure scientists who enjoy doing science and tend to shy away from participating in open political battles.
This brings up the concern of how climate science is often categorically disparaged due to the words and actions of the few who actively express advocacy positions. While undoubtedly there may be scientists who use their stature to advance political positions, there exists a core group of scientists–many of whom are pioneers in advancing our understanding of the climate system–who would like nothing more than to just focus on their science (which includes the basic physics of greenhouse gases and their impact on the radiative budget of the atmosphere), and who have done so to great success throughout their careers. However, as noted in the letter, recent events have led some to try to throw all of climate science under the bus, leaving them no choice but to fight back.
Dan
Dan says:
May 7, 2010 at 7:52 am
They may be giants in their fields but, no one is allowed to question or go over their science. Question the science and they act like their character is question when in actual fact, it is just the science. Where and how did the hypothosis come from and how was it figured out?
Just sign the checks and leave us alone so we can all publish what ever will keep the grants coming in.
Not a single person on that list has a clue to the actual mechanics of how this planet operates. Trapping gas in a box and testing it in a controled lab is nonsense when there are a great many factors and interactions. Controlling the outcome of science is criminal when a politician can take it seriously and pay for it.
Anthony Watts says:
May 7, 2010 at 3:16 am
For the inevitable griper that will be upset about the use of the phrase “mad scientist” in jest in our satirical piece,
A pathetic attempt at satire in my opinion.
It a pity that Jones wasnot allowed the same freedom over his often quoted
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data
available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
A little quip in a PRIVATE email!
/harry
“MarcH says:
May 7, 2010 at 3:38 am
Same photo but with a penguin!
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=3726704/
”
Thanks for pointing this out! So “Science” uses fake photos, probably without pointing it out. Maybe they should simply rename themselves to “Fake”.
BillD says:
May 7, 2010 at 4:31 am
The strength of this letter is that all signers are members of the US National Academy of Sciences. These are the elite of the elite. I don’t know if any climate scientists are members. Often, when there is controversy, the President calls for a study from NAS, and that has great credibility and independence.
_______________________________________________________________________
Yes and note who has the lead signature – Robert McC. Adams – Division of Social Sciences, UCSD —- Can you say POLITICAL PROPAGANDA????
jaypan says:
May 7, 2010 at 5:01 am
Anthony has a complaint about they are not “climate scientists”.
Well, but reading it, they consider themselves being “climate change scientists”.
“The vast majority of the signers are climate change scientists who work at leading U.S. universities and institutions.”
Seems to be a new species, even more knowledegable about how evil climate change negatively influences their fields of expertise.
_____________________________________________________________________
Jaypan I think “climate change scientists” is the politically correct term for Propaganda Specialists. That is why the lead author is Robert McC. Adams – Division of Social Sciences, UCSD Knowledge of climate is not necessary but political spin is.
hunter says:
May 7, 2010 at 7:55 am
I think that’s a different letter, over a month old, and open to signatures from any scientist, not just NAS-certified scientists.
“special interests”
Funding for CRU comes from WWF, Greenpeace, Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, EPA as well as BP, Shell, National Power, UK Nirex, etc, etc.
Source: CRU
“dogma”
and more climate change articles from auntie beeb:
“Do we need to say our prayers?”
“Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?’ The answer is ‘No’…….This is the cautious science; the rest is dogma.””
Philip Stott – Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the University of London
It’ s a recurring fault of those who practice science. they don’t understand rhetoric. They dont get who their audience is. When they write they inevitably tend to imagine and audience that is just like them (and hence has access behind the paywall) or they imagine an audience of soft minded ” A” seeking freshmen, dutifully taking notes on what the good doctor believes as if it were gospel.
They have no idea how to talk to those of us (see the demographics of WUWT or CA)
who are highly educated , successful in the business world, and able to think for ourselves.
http://www.quantcast.com/wattsupwiththat.com
I posted this on the above Guardian page yesterday but they deleted it, twice!
Dr Roy Spencer, former NASA scientist
“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”
Source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/the-great-global-warming-blunder-how-mother-nature-fooled-the-world%e2%80%99s-top-climate-scientists/
There is one virtue of a loyalty oath, disgusting as it may be –
you have a handy list of whom to line up against the wall when it finally hurts enough to stop nervously giggling over it.
Gail Combs says:
May 7, 2010 at 3:58 am &
ShrNfr says:
May 7, 2010 at 5:33 am
Indeed. As a scientist of 40+ years in BASIC science, I view Climate Change Science as a scientific derivative, similar to stock derivatives on Wall Street. CAGW works seem to be part science, part art, part computer science, part new age science. But it is very light on the basic sciences, like physics, math, chemistry, statistics. If hypotheses are not testable (no true controls can be conjured up for past conditions, and we haven’t found our parallel earth yet), then by definition, it is not science. Even if we had a parallel earth, the systems are multivariate and complex.
In the basic sciences, we hold correlations as being significant when they are at least P<0.05, or r = 0.95 at least. Most of the climate change papers have poor correlation coefficients, like 0.6 or something similar, if they even bother to cite statistical methods at all.
Until late last year, I was a member of AAAS, ACS, NYAcadSci, and had subscriptions to Science and Nature. I canceled them all after several years of reading the science fiction within. I would rather read Iron Man and Silver Surfer comics. At least they don't pretend to be real.
I am very sad about the above, and how fast they went downhill. I relied on these journals for 40 years. Thanks to WUWT, Climate Depot, and many online sources, the gap has been filled, better than ever.
“Many recent assaults on climate science… are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.”
However, the standard of evidence does not apply to our accusation that sceptics are driven by special inerests and/or dogma.
Joe-
The change in outgoing longwave radiation due to radiatively-active greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a fairly straightforward radiative calculation, and leads to the basic conclusion, in an idealized radiative-convective equilibrium model (i.e. ignoring all the feedbacks), that doubling CO2 will warm the planet by about 2F–this conclusion is shared by Richard Lindzen as well. What if we include all the feedbacks? Our models suggest they will significantly amplify this effect. Could they be wrong? Absolutely. Could they be right, but then the warming due to increasing GHGs be offset by something else (e.g. clouds) in the system? Absolutely. And, believe it or not, those that I know from that list of names would be the first to tell you that.
When you say “no one is allowed to question or go over their science”, that is not at all true–Richard Lindzen just got an article published. The real issue is what component of the science is in question: challenging the giant climate models is quite acceptable within the scientific community–there are many who have no interest in touching them–but categorically claiming that “global warming is a myth” is to challenge the basic foundation of quantum mechanics and the thermodynamic and radiative properties of gases, upon which many fields of science and the functioning of many real-world applications and instruments are based. This, too, is certainly free to be challenged, but in this latter case, such a successful challenge would earn its place among the great revolutions in scientific history.
“For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category”
And the evidence for the age of the planet, for the age of the universe, and for the theory of evolution are all publicly available for review and well-documented. However, other than a graph of questionable parentage that claims to show a link between CO2 and temperature, I have yet to see any actual evidence for the assertions that CO2 is trapping heat and thus warming the planet, that this trapping will continue to increase, that this CO2 increase is all man-made, and that we’re all going to die unless something is done. I like to pretend I’m a smart person – show me some actual evidence and we’ll talk. But don’t refer to me as a flat-earth creationist again.
Harry Lu
A commonly used satirical technique in English is the pun.
The words “mad” and “angry” might be used interchangeably. That was a very “angry” letter targeting ignorant deniers.
I personally apologize for being so unenlightened about the imminent danger of global meltdown, drowning, monster hurricanes, drought, floods, and Man Bear Pig.
Pielke Jr and Ross McKitrick are both social scientists, yet are very informed about aspects of the issue, so I don’t see this as a disqualification per se. Also, Geography (which could well include climate scientists) is often in a Divison of Social Sciences.
Chuck says:
May 7, 2010 at 5:30 am
Great article, but I have one small criticism. You should remove the line about “flat earth creationists”. It is hard to take you seriously when you complain that you’ve been insulted by insulting someone else.
___________________________________________________________________________
Anthony is not insulting anyone. He is quoting what is said about skeptics. This goes back to Gordon Brown calling climate change deniers “flat-earthers” “..People who doubt that human activity contributes to global warming are “flat-earthers” and “anti-science”, Gordon Brown has said…” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6729833/Gordon-Brown-climate-change-sceptics-are-flat-earthers.html
Here is another one from 2007
“….We’ve all had a good laugh at the right-wing flat-earth creationists or climate-change deniers out there, but skepticism in the fact of new information is also a part of science. As one of those close-minded right-wingers once said, you can only open your mind so far before your brain falls out….” http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=56
It is the other side equating skeptics with right-wing flat-earth creationists.
It should be easy to see where this is coming from
Peter H Gleick, the first and corresponding author of this letter, is probably the sole drafter of this letter.
In 2007, he testified in Congress, where amongst other things, he provided Congressmen with a handy list of ‘wrong arguments’ against science for them to field climate questions in their constituencies. The main body of his testimony was very, very similar to the present letter. He does not seem to have developed any new ideas since then, completely ripping off the text of this testimony to draft this letter.
Which is sadly enough, the main reason for WUWT readers – an informed bunch, to be left scratching their heads. This is all OLD stuff. Being reprinted.
His actions seem to be triggered by the ‘climate scientists under attack’. When that bulb glows, he rolls.
Mr Gleick has a tendency to use the names of Galileo, Einstein and other famous scientists to support the climate agenda. He drags plate tectonics into the question now – the newest addition. His climate communication strategy seems to be employ and thereby claim usage rights for climate science, many of the commonly-seen scientific and pre-scientific metaphors.
Gleick also got into a scrap with Pat Michaels at one point calling him a Flat Earther, which ended up with him coming under the threat of a lawsuit from Michaels.
Considering how this ill-worded intemperate hackjob of arrogance and condescension got published in Science, the only conclusion is that – they have lost their minds too. 🙂
I must mention this – Peter Gleick’s forte is research into drinking water – he is a big name in that. He is against bottled water and its sales. I totally, absolutely agree.
You can Google and verify easily, all of my claims on this post.
Will post more background on my blog.
Comments at the Telegraph site show, much as the letter does, an almost willful disregard for scientific method. As a long time teacher of scientific method and experimental design, I am embarassed for the authors, both of the letter and of many of the comments.
The Big Bang is no more real than is Anthropogenic Global Warming.
It was invented by Georges Lemaître, who later on became the head
of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences under Pius XII. Lemaître, a
Catholic priest who studied under Eddington, openly wanted to
reconcile science and his Augustinian vision of the Universe.
Gail Combs says:
May 7, 2010 at 7:58 am
So when the Western Economy crashes we can come back and pin the blame on you and the other 300 who state the IPCC report is correct.
There you go again with your Alarmist theories – those “economists” making dire predictions of future catastrophic “Western Economy crashes”.
We all know how reliable Economists are – all their “theories” are driven by money, just look at Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers. CWEC is just junk economics.
Economies are naturally variable – sometimes chaotic clouds affect them, such as during the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period, but it’s still just natural variability, between Depression and Overheated Bubbles.
The Null Hypothesis says the Western Economies are going to crash anyway.
That a minuscule fraction of climate professionals, comprising only one scientist out of every 2,600 in the biosphere, is the principal driver of Western economic policies is not only preposterous, but there is zero empirical evidence backing up that ridiculous conjecture. It is rank speculation, nothing more.
Why there are no penguins at the north pole:
Evil Penguins
“Dan says:
[…]
Our models suggest they will significantly amplify this effect. Could they be wrong? Absolutely. Could they be right, but then the warming due to increasing GHGs be offset by something else (e.g. clouds) in the system? Absolutely.”
Given the solution space the probability of the models being wrong tends to approximate 1 while the probability of the models being right tends to approximate 0.
A good indicator for “the models being wrong” is that they failed to predict, project or forecast (all of them) the flat temperatures of the last decade.
So, yes, absolutely, the models “could” not only be wrong, they ARE wrong.
I have scanned the signatory list for people who might be industrial scientists, but can’t be sure that any are amongst the signatories. Can someone else have a go? The reason for this approach is that industrial scientists have/got/ to get things right. If they don’t their jobs will vanish, and state funded grants are not available to try provide time to write another paper. To be sure that they are not promoting nonsense they must carry out “due diligence” to the utmost extent, their and their reporting must be factual and complete, and their conclusions must apposite, timely and beyond criticism.
Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial— scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. My bold.
Well, the signatories obviously don’t understand the Scientific Method. This must be why they’ve also missed the fact that Climate Science as expressed by its Models has an abysmal record concerning its predictions and thus its explanatory power. It’s beginning to look like now the CO2CAGW proponents have even managed to purge the term “Scientific Method” from their lexicon. Perhaps they know that even mentioning it might cause them some problems?
Janice:
A nasty penguin. There are pirate penguins, too.
Ric Werme says:
May 7, 2010 at 6:17 am
Gordon Bell – Computer Pioneer
Hey, someone I know! Gordon designed some DEC’s best computers, systems that made my early career in software engineering very pleasant, interesting, and valuable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDP-10 Wonderful, wonderful system in ways that programmers who missed that era will never understand.
While I haven’t seen him in ages, I suspect I know at least as much about climate science as he does.
____________________________________________________________________
My husband knows him too. Gordon Bell is from the Boston area, “home of the foremost Marxist scholars in the world” as I was proudly told by a communist friend living in Cambridge. Another friend said she studied botany because it was the only field of study at the University of Mass Amherst that did not come without a healthy dose of Marxism.
My husband and I left the area because we just could not take the political environment any more.
I belong in the category of “pissed off” scientist. I mean, I could concoct all sorts of faulty, self-serving studies and data to panic the populace and further my career, and I see this all the time in the field of public health.
Use of fear is an old public health strategy:
—–
In 1910, ROSENAU, the father of preventive medicine in the United
States, wrote:
“Fear is lessening, but we would not want it to disappear entirely, for while it is a
miserable sensation, it has its uses in the same sense that pain may be a marked
benefit to the animal economy, and in the same sense that fever is a conservative
process. Reasonable fear saves many lives and prevents much sickness. It is one of
the greatest forces for good in preventive medicine, as we shall presently see, and
at times it is the most useful instrument in the hands of the sanitarian.4 ”
http://www.biotech.law.lsu.edu/cphl/articles/urbanlawyer.pdf
———
OK, go from cholera and yellow fever right on to AGW. Same/same.
“For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution).”
That reminds me of the Nicene Creed… amazing, it comes across as dogma, even though I generally agree with them on it. The supporting observations of evolution and cosmology are quite straightforward and sound, but CO2-based global warming, not so much.
“(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.”
-??? Parts of the planet have warmed slightly in an as-yet unexplained process, possibly related to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
“(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.”
-OK
“(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.”
-Nonsense. Overwhelmed??? What about the snowy winter in Washington?
“(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.”
-30 years, is that modern times?, or since the invention of the thermometer, is that modern times? But certainly not in geologic time, which they already know about from their earlier creed. This is more nonsense, if the planet warms, it will be no more rapid than some recorded climatic effects of large volcanic explosions for example (the rapid cooling resulting from these is much more damaging to humans and other animals and plants).
Even sea-level rise, which according to the IPCC will be about half a meter through the rest of the century, and possibly the most significant result of any warming, isn’t going to do more than make some people move and reduce some property values. Seriously.
Changes to the hydrologic cycle? It will still be the hydrologic cycle; evaporation, cloud formation, precipitation (even snow will still fall), it may well be that the hydrologic cycle will dampen (pun intended) the warming effects of increased CO2 by increasing cloud formation.
Ocean acidification – Ocean water is still basic, and have a long way to go to become acidic. The change so far is quite small, and most carbonate shell-producing organisms have robust processes for producing their shells. Warmer oceans tend to increase the range of reef-forming corals.
“(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.”
-Threatens, possibly, but remember the world is not static, it is dynamic, tectonic plates move, sometimes the magnetic poles switch, the weather changes, climate does change for sure. Human activity is NOT 100% responsible, no-one know to what degree, but probably not even 25% responsible for recent warming, and stifling our (currently fossil-fuel based) economy when so many people are hungry now is not the thing to do.
Scientific debate is a necessary part of progress in science, and a part of establishing new hypotheses, or discarding incorrect ones. The people who signed this open letter should be willing to debate, but I am guessing that by calling people climate change deniers who haven’t jumped on the bandwagon, they are too dogmatic. Maybe they should have stopped the letter after “We are deeply disturbed…”
This is really funny: ACCUSED OF BULLYING! LOL!!!
Those ugly bad kids of WUWT and all those hateful blogs are bullying us! , Help me Mommy Gaia!!!
“Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling.”
1. The basic laws (I assume he talking about physics) do not allow gases that dissipate heat to then turn around and add heat on their own. CO2 dissipates heat it cannot and will not add heat to any system by itself.
2. There are no lab experiements under STP (0 C and 1 atm) or standard conditions (59 F and 1 atm) that demonstrate CO2 can increase the temperature of anything.
3.Observation of nature, via various proxies, since the end of the last ice age show that the temperature today is cooler than 8000 years ago. CO2 was lower then so it could not have caused that warmth. No temperature/CO2 correlation.
4. If models are not based on #1 above you can get anything you wish. I got a C in calc but modeling second order partial differential equations with 3 axis seems to me to be impossible.
So as far as I can tell the whole of their arguement rest on this sentence and it fails on all counts. The scientific conclusion for CO2 causing warming is false.
Part of the reason I’m a skeptic is my degree in anthropology. The attempts to minimize prior climate change has been laughable.
But seeing people calling themselves anthropologist trying to bully and minimize many good men of science who disagree with them; makes me ashamed of them.
The penguin from istockphoto is on the Skeptical Science website as its logo.
They are deeply disturbed…
Yes.
Remember the “Turn of the Screw”? Do you feel its screeching already?…..Things are turning not in the direction you expected…!
Gotto change sides baby. Don’t worry, we’ll teach you.
The part that kills me the most is where they’re actually attempting to put the AGW hypothesis into the same category as the theories of evolution, gravity, et al.
What an insult to real theories with real science that’s backed with real evidence and real observation.
That’s like handing out a nobel prize to someone who discovers germ theory and then turning around and handing out a nobel prize to someone who makes a movie. It completely belittles the integrity of the former, as well as the credentials of the nobel prize in and of itself.
Absolutely pathetic.
These egomaniacs are in desperate need of getting knocked off of their high horses.
I am thoroughly disgusted.
Phil M. says:
May 7, 2010 at 7:09 am
Anthony and Steven,
It is simply baffling to me that you make such an issue out of being called a “denier”. Your insistance on associating this term with the Holocaust are the only such references I have ever heard. Once again, your “science” blog leaves me speechless.
_____________________________________________________________________
Spreading disinformation again Phil M.? As usual Anthony is correct: the use of the term “Denier” is equating skeptics with Holocaust Deniers in some instances: Here are some headlines:
Ellen Goodman: ‘Global Warming Deniers Are Now on a Par with Holocaust Deniers’ http://newsbusters.org/node/10730
Mark Steyn: “Climate Holocaust Denier” : http://townhall.com/blog/g/e1f72884-3877-4537-8849-f6e13776a492
Even the US Senate saw the connection
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Oct 11, 2006 … “The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier,’” http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=ghl&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=climate++%22holocaust+denier%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Shub Niggurath says:
May 7, 2010 at 9:28 am:
“The penguin from istockphoto is on the Skeptical Science website as its logo.”
How appropriate! A fake photo for a fake skeptics’ blog.
It appears to be some sort of a confession that all of the sciences are infected. 🙂
“We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un restrained burning of fossil fuels.”
Does that include the Sun, ocean currents, clouds, methane and co2 emitted by nature, volcanoes, land clearance, UHI, Mann, Hansen, Jones? Where to begin?
They should have said:
“We urge our policy-makers and the public to further fund us immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un restrained burning of fossil fuels and switch over to winmills and carbon credits which we have heavily bought into.”
The only prosecuting seems to be the defamation suits by Mann and Weaver against their critics, see: http://www.stockwatch.com/newsit/newsit_newsit.aspx?bid=Z-C:CGS-1714918&symbol=CGS&news_region=C
In contrast, all attempts at having the alarmists’ ‘science’ subjected to proper scrutiny are routinely stonewalled by the Establishment and then immediately followed up by an official whitewash.
I note that none of the signatories appear to work in the real world, but are either academics or parasite consultants and therefore dependent on the government purse strings for their livelihood.
As a librarian, I searched a big database for the articles. They are not available to anyone (yet.)
I did find this though:
Administration policies are panned: Budgets, scientific integrity, and energy policy are criticized by science policy experts at AAAS forum.(American Association for the Advancement of Science).
——————————————————————————–
Chemical & Engineering News 84.19 (May 8, 2006): p29(2).
Hide details Show details
Author(s): David J. Hanson.
Document Type: Magazine/Journal
Bookmark: Bookmark this Document
——————————————————————————–
Abstract:Science policy leaders questioned the Bush administration about the declining federal funding, political interference with science, and government inaction on the issue of global climate change April 2006’s Forum on Science & Technology Policy presented by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It was also criticized for actions that impinge on the integrity of science, particularly as it relates to peer review.
Finding out what is really going on with the climate, in particular getting to the actual measured data on global temperatures, ice cover, etc. takes time and energy. The mainstream newspapers and liberal news channels, which are usually science oriented, in the US are very far from presenting both sides of the story, unlike say The Times of London or Der Spiegel.
For someone like the signatories, whose intensive work is far from climate concerns, the time and energy to dig for measured data are a luxury. I am sure that if they were put in front of balanced data, most of them would switch sides. Alas, we have to wait for a few big stories in The NY Times or similar papers… Maybe next October, if the Arctic summer ice is all back.
Until then, Andrew Revkin who showed some signs of balance by keeping debates alive is no longer with the NYT and his blog was taken off the Science section and moved to Opinion. True debates, in the opinion of the NYT, are not part of science, and could confuse children into thinking that not all scientists agree on everything. This view holds science for dead with the NYT writing its obituary.
Is the Guardian referring to this letter, signed by over 100 Nobel Laureates?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/climate-change-and-the-in_b_564362.html
I can’t believe that any real scientist would put his name to this hypocritical pile of drivel, on support of the falsified CAGW hypothesis!
For some time now the world of science has been struggling to maintain its old standard models in many fields, as technology has provided newer and better information. Ever more patches and ‘fairy dust’ are having to be applied and this is making the credibility of science sink faster than a hot ball-bearing on butter.
Attempts by these eminent people to defend the position of those involved in the cargo cult science of climatology reflects very badly on their credibility – they should have more sense.
This letter is the outcome of the effort documented in three WUWT threads below (oldest first):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/04/ad-hoc-group-wants-to-run-attack-ads/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/07/emails-from-attack-ad-science-group-posted/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/15/academics-fight-back-on-climate-issues/
Consensus should be discarded, creeds should be questioned, untouchable laws should be revisited, even holy “constants” checked for accuracy, no matter who’s Saint name is on its label. There is not HOLY science unless positively tested in the lab, if something cannot be tested then it must be considered doubtful.
And, last but not least: A bunch of zeroes will NEVER equal one single UNIT.
MarcH says:
May 7, 2010 at 3:34 am
Just read the caption for the bear photo at istockphoto.com …
“A polar bear managed to get on one of the last ice floes floating in the Arctic sea. Due to global warming the natural environment of the polar bear in the Arctic has changed a lot. The Arctic sea has much less ice than it had some years ago. (This images is a photoshop design. Polarbear, ice floe, ocean and sky are real, they were just not together in the way they are now) ”
In other words, no polar bears were harmed in the making of Global Warming.
Sigh.
blah… political assaults on …climate scientists (takes a drink)
blah… a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change (takes a drink)
blah… recent assaults on climate science (takes a drink)
blah… climate change deniers (takes a drink)
blah… IPCC … thousands of scientists (takes a drink)
blah… The planet is warming due to (GHGs) (takes a drink)
blah… Most of the increase in (GHGs) is due to human activities (takes a drink)
blah… Natural causes…being overwhelmed by human-induced changes (takes a drink)
blah… change at speeds unprecedented in modern times (takes a drink)
blah… making the oceans more acidic (takes a drink)
blah… unrestrained burning of fossil fuels (takes a drink)
blah… McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues (takes a drink)
blah… delay must not be an option (takes a drink)
Come on… hic… everyone… hic… I can’t play this new… hic… warmist drinking game alone anymore… it’s getting hard to … concentrate…
… or penguins
Well, at least they’re consistent.
Quick! We must act now!
Sign the scroll of shame.
Dave McK says:
May 7, 2010 at 8:47 am
There is one virtue of a loyalty oath, disgusting as it may be –
you have a handy list of whom to line up against the wall when it finally hurts enough to stop nervously giggling over it.
__________________________________
HMmmm I was just think the same thing. The problem with scientists is most of them never bother to pay attention history. You know things like the Icelandic volcano Katla erupting the year before the French “unwashed masses” decided to relieve their frustrations on the French aristocracy after being starved near to death.
It will be interesting to see what the spoiled younger generation in the USA does when the reality of food shortages hits them in the tummy in the next couple of years.
1. The last of the USDA reserves were used in 2008
2. The price of fertilizer, fuel and feed for livestock doubled recently then add an additional increase due to Cap and Trade if it is passed
3. Add the cost of Waxman’s proposed “Food Safety Regs” and the proposed DOT regs on tractors.
3. Mix well with cooling from the expected eruption of Katla.
I think we are going to see some very interesting times in the near future but I hope I am wrong. Unfortunately what is happening in California seems to be a preview of what is to come – Rampant unemployment and idiotic politics.
istockphoto are hosting this fake polar bear picture to be used by global warming propagandists – nothing wrong in that. They couldn’t come up with a convincing real picture – as effective as the fake one – presumably because the polar bears were having animal sex and multiplying, or in other words elsewhere and busy.
What happened to the editor of the letter section, Jennifer Sills? Couldn’t she have spotted that Science was pushing the use of a fake photo to support a letter on the ‘integrity’ of science?
Ok, forget about her. What about the person who sourced this image from iStockPhoto? All they had to do was visit the page which has the cropped Photoshopped version of this image and look at the comments section.
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=4095333/
A user noted almost two years ago that this photo is not a good idea.
“To use this in a journalism piece (i.e. a magazine cover as one other member suggested) is absolutely unethical. When photos and facts are altered to suit an agenda, it is not journalism. It is propaganda and I hope no one working in in that field tries to pass this off as a legitimate image.”
Look at ‘coldimages’ – the profile of the person/company who uploaded the penguin picture. There is a boatload of Photoshopped penguins, trees, polar bears where every permutation and combination of copypasting is present. For example, take a look at this (three penguins on the same ice floe!!)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6262600-global-warming.php
What happened to due diligence, at Science Magazine?
So, 250 eminent scientists have wanted to express support
for climate scientists. And that is … unconstitutional, unheard
of, unlawful, somebody’s business?
As a reaction: over 150 comments, mostly unblanced.
Haven’t you heard the song: ‘everytime you use invective,
you die a little …
Talking of “denier” read this Phil M.
Shub Niggurath says:
May 7, 2010 at 8:57 am
Mr Gleick has a tendency to use the names of Galileo, Einstein and other famous scientists to support the climate agenda. He drags plate tectonics into the question now – the newest addition.
That’s actually kind of ironic – he’s invoking plate tectonics, when the authors of that theory, much like AGW skeptics these days, had to put up with a lot of contemporary criticism and ridicule when they proposed the idea.
Hu McCulloch says:
May 7, 2010 at 8:51 am
“…Pielke Jr and Ross McKitrick are both social scientists, yet are very informed about aspects of the issue, so I don’t see this as a disqualification per se. Also, Geography (which could well include climate scientists) is often in a Divison of Social Sciences.”
__________________________________________________________________________
It is STILL propaganda pure and simple.
“Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:”
Where the heck are special interests? The banks, speculators and oil companies are funding CAGW not skeptics. “not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence” It is NOT up to skeptics to prove anything. It is up to the CAGW crowd to PROVE, and not with some idiot computer model, that their hypothesis is correct and should replace the null hypothesis, the climate change is natural. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) … have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected” Again that statement is plan old disinformation. Scientist have quit IPCC because their comments on errors were ignored. see http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EDBLICKRANT.pdf
I received an e-mail from British Airways this morning which made me laugh. You can now pay extra carbon offsets for flying first class!
It never seems to occur to “scientists” that we laymen are well able to understand the scientific system, without any need for talking down. Many, many of us understand the system better than the scientists themselves. Many, many of us understand the severe limitations of statistics on which they too habitually depend, and all too many of them do not. Much of the current mess stems from the single fact that we have people making firm conclusions using the statistical tool that they are simply not competent to wield. How many of them, I wonder, understand that two meticulously measured circumstances can be described as facts, whereas the mean between them is simply a mathematical concept – its validity not extending beyond the mind.
“We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.”
This paragraph is a dillywhopper.
a) Threats of criminal prosecution – The threats of prosecution originated on the warmists’ side and had all the earmarks of being a political crime, i.e. if you don’t agree with us you should be subject to prosecution for crimes against humanity. Anyone convicted on those terms would essentially be a political prisoner. The only calls for prosecution I’ve heard on the skeptics’ side are for actual instances of fraud – misuse of research funds, hiding or fudging data, etc. Not that I think that’s necessarily wise, but it’s based on specific facts, not the general principle that someone with a different opinion should be thrown in jail.
b) innuendo and guilt by association – If we each had $1 for every time a warmist used the “they’re funded by Big Oil” canard we would all be exceedingly rich. They’re masters at the art of guilt by association.
c) seeking distractions to avoid taking action – Wrong. Many of us don’t think the actions proposed are worth taking. We’re not trying to avoid them, we disagree with them. The “scientists” in this letter can’t even be respectful enough to acknowledge the true motivation of their opposition.
d) outright lies being spread -Another case of the pot calling the kettle black. See b) above.
e) Society has two choices – I’m sure on a topic as complex as this society has significantly more than two choices. Your preferred choice and the strawman choice aren’t the only possible options.
f) But delay must not be an option – Says who? It reminds me of the Henry Ford saying from the early days of the Model T – you could have the car in any color you wanted, as long as you wanted it in black. If we’re truly being scientific, and not political, then delay may very well be an option. To close off one possible conclusion before you even start the deliberation means you are less interested in the evidence than you are in selling a particular conclusion you’ve already leapt to. It’s yet one more example of the bullying these scientists routinely engage in while decrying (falsely) that same behavior in others.
Anyone who signs their name to an article on climate controversy and it includes the phrase “deniers” should get therapy. Anyone who would sign on to that document can be dismissed as “reality challenged”.
Nice how they want the scientific method but ignore it not being followed and downright subverted when it suits them. Truth is winning and they are grasping at any straw they can. Pathetic.
Gosh….when I saw the original headline in the Guardian I had a sinking feeling that they had really produced a serious piece of work, and had it signed by some truly eminent scientists.
Having read it, neither is true.
If this is the best that the warmists can produce, then their arguments really are crumbling. Hardly worthy of a 6th form debating society, certainly not of any serious attention. Together with the shoddy and superficial work from both Oxburgh and the Parliamentary enquiry, one has to wonder if these guys are trying to play in the Champions League or just Sunday morning football before the pub opens?
“wanted to express support for climate scientists”
It’s not their job to “express support”. It’s their job to do science. One is not the other. One is a political act. The other is science.
The Polar Bear image has the following comment on its iStockPhoto page:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4095333-the-last-polar-bear.php
AngieChia 2008-11-20 09:26
Rating: none
Downloaded File: No
To use this in a journalism piece (i.e. a magazine cover as one other member suggested) is absolutely unethical. When photos and facts are altered to suit an agenda, it is not journalism. It is propaganda and I hope no one working in in that field tries to pass this off as a legitimate image.
Anu says:
May 7, 2010 at 9:02 am
Gail Combs says:
May 7, 2010 at 7:58 am
“So when the Western Economy crashes we can come back and pin the blame on you and the other 300 who state the IPCC report is correct……..
The Null Hypothesis says the Western Economies are going to crash anyway.
That a minuscule fraction of climate professionals, comprising only one scientist out of every 2,600 in the biosphere, is the principal driver of Western economic policies is not only preposterous, but there is zero empirical evidence backing up that ridiculous conjecture. It is rank speculation, nothing more.”
RANK SPECULATION??? The Climate Scientists are up to their eyeballs in the scam to fleece the public and cripple their economies. No energy means no industry means no jobs means crashing economies.
From the letter Climate scientist declare
“(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.
(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.
Much more can be, and has been, said by the world’s scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un restrained burning of fossil fuels.”
From Paul Craig Roberts who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
“I am amazed that the US government, in the midst of the worst financial crises ever, is content for short-selling to drive down the asset prices that the government is trying to support….The bald fact is that the combination of ignorance, negligence, and ideology that permitted the crisis to happen still prevails and is blocking any remedy. Either the people in power in Washington and the financial community are total dimwits or they are manipulating an opportunity to redistribute wealth from taxpayers, equity owners and pension funds to the financial sector. http://www.countercurrents.org/roberts250209.htm
Stewart Dougherty, a specialist in inferential analysis, agrees. It is now “statistically impossible for the United States to pay its obligations”. http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/08.09/metastasis.html
And here is an explanation how the Fed controls boom and bust cycles to their benefit: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=222963174&blogId=294391093
As I already stated the World Bank wants control of the world carbon trading scheme per the leaked Denmark text. CAGW is a massive con job. The frantic attempts to get the legislation passed quickly without seeing if the changes in the ocean oscillation and a quiet sun have any effect especially after a decade of level temperatures makes that pretty darn clear. True scientists without political agendas would adopt a wait and see attitude given the recent climate developments and no rise in temps. Instead they are rushing to push their agenda before the window of opportunity closes and they are shown to be frauds.
Zeke the Sneak says:
May 7, 2010 at 10:00 am
It appears to be some sort of a confession that all of the sciences are infected. 🙂
The ulcers of Cardinal Richelieu were infested with worms and he disguised its putrefaction pestilence with the finest french perfumes.
No, they could sword they are clean and well dressed, while imagining we don’ t smell the putrefaction and nakedness of their corpses.
Mike Kelly says:
May 7, 2010 at 9:27 am
2. There are no lab experiements under STP (0 C and 1 atm) or standard conditions (59 F and 1 atm) that demonstrate CO2 can increase the temperature of anything.
Well there were a few lab experiments which exactly showed that around 1860 by Tyndall:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TyndallsSetupForMeasuringRadiantHeatAbsorptionByGases_annotated.jpg
As the radiation absorption by CO2 (and other GHGs) was measured and no energy can be lost, I suppose that the CO2 in the tube (and the tube itself) warmed up, whatever the original temperature of gas and tube.
I’m a biologist, but I am ashamed that fellow members of my profession signed this moronic “document”.
For the record, I believe that the World has warmed, that a small fraction of this may be down to CO2, but that there is no evidence of “catastrophic” change and not likely to be.
PS higher temperatures and CO2 are good for plants = primary productivity = more food
mikael pihlström :
No, believe me, it is not like that. It is so easy to see!. A proverb says: “God blinds people he does not want them to see”
What will surprise the many: Politicians will change sides BEFORE than their “science” advisors: They are not fool but they are practical men, if their assets are in danger, they will “recycle” their disposable assistants. This will happend before you even noticed it. Remember: “He who laughs the last laughs the better”
What, Mary Jane West-Eberhard from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute doesn’t give this letter and what it stands for enough credence? Afterall, she did publish the definitive “game” changing climate change paper:
Mary Jane West-Eberhard. 2005. The maintenance of sex as a developmental trap due to sexual selection. Quarterly Review of Biology 80(1): 47-53.
I mean, come on, when we mean consensus, why can we not include Brian Larkins, who has NEVER been a lead author on any publication, but was last author on:
David R. Holding, Marissa Otegui, Bailin Li , B., Robert B. Meeley, Thao Dam, Brenda G. Hunter, Rudolf Jung and Brian A. Larkins (2007) The maize Floury1 gene encodes a novel ER protein involved in zein protein-body formation. Plant Cell 19, 2569-2582.
Otherwise we would never know the detrimental effect of global warming on corn proteins.
toby says:
May 7, 2010 at 10:12 am
The letter said 11 Nobel Laureates. But this is the usual method of the warmist dogmatic alarmist. Use the sausage principle – the skin of the truth stuffed with lies, multiplied by ten!
The signers are mostly FAGTs (Feeders At the Government Trough), so they have no chance of staying in the trade if they commit heresy and buck the consensus. 11 Nobel Laureates? Did Arafat sign before he died, or Jimmy or Algore? A badge of dishonor, this prize, except in the medical field these days, and even these get it sometimes for things like embryonic stem cell “research” (no prize for the successful adult stem cell researcher, of course).
Which brings up the similarities between the fundamentalist warm-monger movement and the eugenics movement in the 30s. Yes, there was a consensus to remove the useless eaters, and Joe Kennedy, Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood), and Josef Mengele all were among the leaders of the “consensus”. Stalin and Lysenko loved it, it justified the slaughter of the sub-human Ukrainians. The lowly were the scourge of the earth. As is viewed the developing world today, who must be “population controlled” (read killed), according to the true warmist believers. Smarmy elitists, the lot.
We learn little from history – but because of the free interchange of information now, it is open for discussion.
“Look out kid
They keep it all hid
Better jump down a manhole
Light yourself a candle
Don’t wear sandals
Try to avoid the scandals
Don’t wanna be a bum
You better chew gum
The pump don’t work
‘Cause the vandals took the handles”
– Dylan
mikael pihlström says:
May 7, 2010 at 11:04 am
So, 250 eminent scientists have wanted to express support
for climate scientists. And that is … unconstitutional, unheard
of, unlawful, somebody’s business?
It maybe that we have learned a few things about
“eminent scientists” over time.
http://video.pbs.org/video/1049423655/
kcom says:
May 7, 2010 at 11:32 am
“wanted to express support for climate scientists”
It’s not their job to “express support”. It’s their job to do science. One is not the other. One is a political act. The other is science.
—
They are scientists and citizens. I am sure they do their job.
As citizens they have every right to protest against an unfair
political attack on the science.
Dan:
you wrote:
“When you say “no one is allowed to question or go over their science”, that is not at all true–Richard Lindzen just got an article published. The real issue is what component of the science is in question: challenging the giant climate models is quite acceptable within the scientific community.”
Surprisingly enough, I agree with this part. Scientists do indeed question the science. But when we look at the rough and tumble of climate science at this level we get an impression that is completely at odds with the cut-n-dried, black-n-white simplicity portrayed by the MSM. If your only source of information is the newspaper, you can be forgiven for believing that humans are causing an unprecedented warming that will be rapid, accelerating and a grave risk to human existence.
Yet, if we even ask the first pertinent question – what do climate scientists believe – we find not a single, uniform consensus, as the MSM tries to misinform the public, but a diverse range of opinions. These opinions encompass everything from catastrophic warming due to GHG’s to minimal warming. There are arguments over sensitivities, positive or negative feedbacks, the role of clouds, whether the “missing heat” actually exists, effects of aerosols, solar cycles, and PDO’s. There is this level of uncertainty, that although uttered grudgingly by some proponents of warming, is ignored competely by the media, and is something that Joe Public is never told.
So when you then write:
“–but categorically claiming that “global warming is a myth” is to challenge the basic foundation of quantum mechanics and the thermodynamic and radiative properties of gases, upon which many fields of science and the functioning of many real-world applications and instruments are based,” you are doing the very same thing that I have just criticized the media for. You have taken one particle of fact – that quantum mechanics leads to a CO2 greenhouse effect – and left out all the myriad of differences, ranges of sensitivity and uncertainties that exist.
I like the reference to the big bang because it is more apt than the authors of the letter realise. There is no single big bang theory – that is a simplified story made for public consumption. In reality there are closer to 50 variations. Same with climate change. There are numerous variations. To argue one version of big bang over another is not big bang denialism. To argue over the various versions of climate change is not climate change denialism. The problem for the story writers is that some of the climate change versions do not fit in with their message. That is not science. It is advocacy.
@ Dan – “Richard Lindzen just got an article published.” — And within seconds, that paper was gone over with a fine-toothed comb by the climate scientific community. I’m curious. How long was it before any scientist bothered to check out Mann, et al 98? Was there any criticism of that paper?
Atomic Hairdryer says:
May 7, 2010 at 5:56 am
“…..also managed to capture an unusual solar phenomenon-”
Merely 99% perspiration. Post modern Photoshopping. It is a Rorschach test.
ScientistForTruth says:
May 7, 2010 at 5:59 am
“For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category”
Including Carbon D’arkside alarmism I would bet good money on three out of four of the theories being anything from downright wrong via conveniently brusque to egregiously incomplete. Or various ratios thereof.
My 4 year old daughter must take the credit for “Carbon Darkside”. She is a Star Wars fan and I watch (too) many science programs. They are all steeped in this pickling fluid and she is catching onto the propagandistic aspect, as any innocent would. I am damned if I am going to stop teaching her. I will “not go gentle into that good night.”
Gail Combs says:
May 7, 2010 at 11:37 am
“The Climate Scientists are up to their eyeballs in the scam to fleece the public and cripple their economies. No energy means no industry means no jobs means crashing economies.”
You overestimate their (CS) power by a factor of thousands. The US
deficit is 12 trillion dollars, caused by wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, the
Financial crisis . You cite Paul Craig Roberts; he is really angry about the
Wall street crisis, not climate policy. To pretend that a cap and trade
policy comes even close to the sums utterly wasted due to above
political choices is ridiculous.
Trade and cap will not shut down energy use, just provide incentives
for a gradual shift to renewables.
I can assure you, the moment I see an unfair political attack on anything, I will be among the first to cry foul and leap to someone’s defense.
Key word here, is “unfair”. What would be “fair”? Giving back in kind what they have dished out to skeptics? Judging by the actions of the warmists so far, they’d probably drop dead in their tracks from rage.
“James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will call today for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
This needs to be met with a slap. The Laframboise Approach of creating groups to multiple-check references and backgrounds in batches could be an idea.
Vincent says:
May 7, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Yet, if we even ask the first pertinent question – what do climate scientists believe – we find not a single, uniform consensus, as the MSM tries to misinform the public, but a diverse range of opinions. These opinions encompass everything from catastrophic warming due to GHG’s to minimal warming. There are arguments over sensitivities, positive or negative feedbacks, the role of clouds, whether the “missing heat” actually exists, effects of aerosols, solar cycles, and PDO’s. There is this level of uncertainty, that although uttered grudgingly by some proponents of warming, is ignored competely by the media, and is something that Joe Public is never told.
———————-
You describe an ideal situation – something like that could have
happened, but history went in other direction: scepticism was captured
by a ruthless political disinformation campaign. The mainstream
scientific establishment will not and should not, engage with them.
Individual sceptic contributions in earnest is another thing.
Some interesting comments on the KQED Climate Watch Blog, over 50 California scientists signed the letter, but some high profile California scientist are missing from the list.
A total of 255 scientists signed the letter, which was published this week in the journal Science (available by subscription only). High-profile signers include Paul Ehrlich and Stephen Schneider, both based at Stanford.
Perhaps just as interesting as who signed the letter is who did not. Missing are several luminaries in California climate science circles, such as Dan Cayan and Richard Somerville of the Scripps Institution, and Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore National Lab. Santer has participated in media calls organized to defend findings of the IPCC. Santer has served as an IPCC lead author.
Gleick explained to me that the letter was circulated only to NAS members listed in climate-related disciplines. From a check of the proprietary NAS member database, it appears that Cayan and Santer are not members. Also missing from the signatories is Stanford’s Chris Field, who is engaged in preparing the next IPCC report. Field has been an NAS member since 2001.
According to Gleick, a few declined to sign as they were “involved in ongoing assessments” for NAS when the letter was circulated and wished to avoid any apparent conflicts of interest. Gleick admits that scientists walk a precarious line when they cross over from research into activism, but says sometimes it’s justified. “It’s important that scientists speak out when an issue is as important as climate is,” he said.
Again, you’re wrong. Ever get tired of this?
Actually, skepticism was wrongly characterized as a ruthless political disinformation campaign. Your claim otherwise is unsupportable and wrong. Just… wrong.
Shub Niggurath says:
May 7, 2010 at 10:59 am
istockphoto are hosting this fake polar bear picture to be used by global warming propagandists – nothing wrong in that. They couldn’t come up with a convincing real picture – as effective as the fake one – presumably because the polar bears were having animal sex and multiplying, or in other words elsewhere and busy.
What happened to the editor of the letter section, Jennifer Sills? Couldn’t she have spotted that Science was pushing the use of a fake photo to support a letter on the ‘integrity’ of science?
“To use this in a journalism piece (i.e. a magazine cover as one other member suggested) is absolutely unethical. When photos and facts are altered to suit an agenda, it is not journalism. It is propaganda and I hope no one working in in that field tries to pass this off as a legitimate image.”
What happened to due diligence, at Science Magazine?
As you say, tehre’s nothing wrong with Photoshop creative work, provided you don’t sell it as truth.
If used in Science, then it is more like fraud, or at least malice, although they will say it’s nothing but graphic design.
Some scientists may think that an area is theirs to do with as they wish. But when the area really matters, it doesn’t work that way. Medical researchers don’t get to do the work any old way they feel like it, because lives are at stake. They are required to use professional statisticians and double-blind experiments, whether they like it or not. All work must be kept, whether they like it or not. Publicly-funded scientists are required to respond to public questions, whether they like it or not. The laws of libel and slander treat public figures different from other folks, because their doings and sayings are now part of the public discussion. If we couldn’t talk about those, for fear of libel suits, we couldn’t discuss public policy.
When the area really matters, the rules change. Whether you like it or not.
mikael pihlström says:
May 7, 2010 at 12:08 pm
kcom says:
May 7, 2010 at 11:32 am
“wanted to express support for climate scientists”
It’s not their job to “express support”. It’s their job to do science. One is not the other. One is a political act. The other is science.
—
They are scientists and citizens. I am sure they do their job.
As citizens they have every right to protest against an unfair
political attack on the science.
—
Or unfair scientific attacks on politics.
Citizens protesting is politics. Consensus is politics. Your arguments are political.
@ mikeal pihl
“The US deficit is 12 trillion dollars, caused by wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, the
Financial crisis .”
Tax cuts period. I hesitate to suggest more tax, but it may be necessary. I understand that 50% of Americans pay no Federal income tax at all. And entitlements still are increasing, the siren call of something for nothing is pulling them into the same whirlpool as Greece is in. Also, if there was more tax on automotive fuel, as in Europe, even a carbon tax, people would reduce the miles they drove, and they wouldn’t need to import so much, possibly a net gain to the economy.
The B’s:
– Boyle, Ed A, Massachusetts Institute of Technology – Professor of Ocean Geochemistry
– Branton, Daniel, Harvard University – Higgins Professor of Biology, Emeritus
– Briggs, Steven P, University of California, San Diego – Professor, Biological Sciences, Cancer Genes and Genome Program
– Briggs, Winslow R, Carnegie Institution of Washington – Stanford University (apparently biochemist)
– Brill, Winston J, Winston J. Brill and Associates – “the most outstanding microbiologist and immunologist, under age of 40, in the U.S. and Canada”
– Britten, Roy J, California Institute of Technology – Apparently molecular geneticist
– Broecker, Wallace S, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Columbia University – Newberry Professor of Geology, “the Grandfather of Climate Science”
– Brown, James H, University of New Mexico – Interdisciplinary Biology, Community Ecology, Biogeography, Allometry – Distinguished Professor
– Brown, Patrick O, MD, Stanford University School of Medicine – Professor of Biochemistry
– Brunger, Axel T, Stanford University – Axel Brunger’s goal is to understand the molecular mechanism of synaptic neurotransmitter release. Dr. Brunger is also Professor of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, and of Photon Science at Stanford University.
Enneagram says:
May 7, 2010 at 11:41 am
Yes, probably as bad as that! The worst of them are rotten and though they sport different titles, they are all “political scientists.”
Gcb: “That’s actually kind of ironic – he’s invoking plate tectonics, when the authors of that theory, much like AGW skeptics these days, had to put up with a lot of contemporary criticism and ridicule when they proposed the idea.”
Both plate tectonics and AGW were new theories, so in that important sense are similar. And both also generated “a lot of contemporary criticism and ridicule when they proposed the idea”.
The real irony here is the failure to see these similarities.
REPLY: and just because plate tectonics turns out to be correct, doesn’t mean AGW is.
The C’s:
– Cairns, Jr John, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University – Cairns retired as both Director, University Center for Environmental and Hazardous Materials Studies, and University Distinguished Professor of Environmental Biology
– Canfield, Donald E, University of Southern Denmark – “In the broadest terms my research focuses on the chemistry and microbial ecology of marine sediments from both modern seas and over geologic time.”
– Carpenter, Stephen R, University of Wisconsin – Professor of Limnology – Carpenter’s research addresses food web processes in lakes, eutrophication, long-term ecological change, and aspects of ecological economics and resilience in social-ecological systems.
– Carrington, James C, Oregon State University – Director, Center for Genome Research and Biocomputing – Stewart Professor, Botany and Plant Pathology
– Cashmore, Anthony R, University of Pennsylvania – Robert I. Williams Professor of Biology – My research interests concern the mechanism by which plants respond to light.
– Castilla, Juan Carlos, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile – “Castilla’s original human exclusion research is still bearing fruit two decades later.” “Besides this research, Castilla also is actively studying linkages between the ocean’s water column and the rocky intertidal and benthic subtidal zones, for example, how marine larvae rely on the column for transport from one zone to another”
– Cazenave, Anny, Centre National d’ Etudes Spatiales – Geophysics.
– Chapin, III F, Stuart, University of Alaska – (Nickname Terry) Professor of Ecology – Department of Biology and Wildlife. Institute of Arctic Biology
– Ciechanover, Aaron J, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology – Prof. Aaron J. Ciechanover is a 2004 Nobel Laureate for Chemistry, a Distinguished Research Professor in the Faculty of Medicine of the Technion Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa and a Member of the Advisory Board of the International Peace Foundation.
– Clapham, David E, Harvard Medical School – Professor of Neurobiology and Pediatrics; Aldo R. Castaneda Professor of Cardiovascular Research Children’s Hospital; Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute; The Clapham laboratory studies ion channels and calcium signaling.
– Clark, William C, Harvard University – Harvey Brooks Professor of International Science, Public Policy and Human Development. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Center for International Development. “Trained as an ecologist, his research focuses on the interactions of environment, development and security concerns in international affairs, with a special emphasis on the role of science and technology in shaping those interactions.”
– Clayton, Robert N, University of Chicago – Enrico Fermi Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus. “Our research centers on the application of stable isotope abundance measurements to geochemical and cosmochemical problems.”
– Coe, Michael D, Yale University – Charles J. MacCurdy Professor of Anthropology Emeritus at Yale University, whose main concentration has been on the Maya and the Olmec.
– Conwell, Esther M, University of Rochester – Research Professor. Professor Conwell and her group have been studying transport of excess electrons and holes along the base stack in DNA.
– Cowling, Ellis B, North Carolina State University – Distinguished Professor of Forestry and Plant Pathology. Interests: […] man-induced changes in the chemical climate and their effects on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; role of scientists in public decision making.
– Cowling, Richard M, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University – Research Professor. 2000: Research Professor, Botany Department and Terrestrial Ecological Research Unit, University of Port Elizabeth. 2000: Honorary Professor in Botany, UCT. 2001: Adjunct Professor, School of Environmental Biology, Curtin University, Perth
– Cox, Charles S, University of California, San Diego – “Dr. Charles S. Cox, Jr., is the Children’s Fund, Inc. Distinguished Professor of Pediatric Surgery and directs the Pediatric Surgical Translational Laboratories and Pediatric Program in Regenerative Medicine at The University of Texas Medical School at Houston. He directs the Pediatric Trauma Program at the University of Texas-Houston/Children’s Memorial Hermann Hospital in the Texas Medical Center.”
– Croteau, Rodney B, Washington State University – Our research deals broadly with the origin, metabolism and function of terpenoids in plants, and more specifically with the monoterpene (C10), sesquiterpene (C15) and diterpene (C20) constituents of the essential oils and resins used in pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, flavors, fragrances, and as industrial raw materials.
– Crothers, Donald M, Yale University – Sterling Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Professor of Chemical Engineering, Department of Chemistry
– Crutzen, Paul J, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry – Winner of the Nobel prize in Chemistry 1995. Ph.D. (Filosofie Licentiat), Meteorology, 1968. Stratospheric and tropospheric chemistry, and their role in the biogeochemical cycles and climate. Since November 2000: Emeritus. Interests: Global modelling of atmospheric chemical processes (2-D, 3-D) for troposphere, stratosphere and lower mesosphere
mikael pihlström says:
May 7, 2010 at 1:14 pm
You describe an ideal situation – something like that could have
happened, but history went in other direction: scepticism was captured
by a ruthless political disinformation campaign.
Unsupported political discourse. And allow me tell you, this sort of unsupported statements about “disinformation campaigns” doesn’t look good.
toby said on May 7, 2010 at 10:12 am:
Well, while I’m not sure offhand what the base is of the numbering system he uses where 100 becomes 11 base 10, I have to give him credit for leading me to this howler from Peter H. Gleick:
Social scientists, geneticists, computer programmers?
We Have Confirmation! You do not have to be a “climatologist” to understand climate science! The Appeal to Authority (namely climatologists) is now dead!
Credit to toby for leading me to this valuable information, as is fair. Good job, toby!
There is something familiar about the language and style of writing in this letter. I can’t put my finger on it but my guess would be that it was composed by a well known AGW advocate. I find it to be patronising in the extreme and entirely without merit. It is just a very badly worded ill conceived appeal to authority without a shread of evidence to support its message. Whoever agreed the style and the content of this letter has done a disservice to themselves, their cause and all the unfortunate signatories who were (no doubt) press-ganged into signing it.
BJ says:
May 7, 2010 at 10:40 am
In other words, no polar bears were harmed in the making of Global Warming.”
Speaking of which, if global warming is so terrible for them, how did they manage to survive all the previous episodes of warming, which were ALL warmer than this one?
And the D’s, and enough for today:
** Daily, Gretchen C, Stanford University – Senior Fellow, Woods Institute. Bing Professor in Environmental Science. Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment. Director-Natural Capital Project. Director, Center for Conservation Biology. “An ecologist by training, Gretchen Daily’s work spans scientific research, teaching, public education and working with leaders to advance practical approaches to environmental challenges. Her scientific research focuses on biodiversity change[…]”. “Daily is chair of the Natural Capital Project, a partnership among The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund and Stanford University, whose goal is to align economic forces with conservation. She works extensively with private landowners, economists, lawyers, business people and government agencies to incorporate environmental issues into business practice and public policy. Her efforts span fundamental research and policy-oriented demonstration projects in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America and Oceania.”
** Dalrymple, Brent G, Oregon State University – Discipline: Marine Geology & Geophysics. Title: Professor Emeritus. Interests: Radiometric dating methods, esp. 40Ar/39Ar techniques. Geomagnetic field behavior, esp. Polarity reversals. History and timing of volcanic events. Impact history on the early Moon. Age of the Earth.
** Dangl, Jeffrey L, University of North Carolina – Dept. of biology. “Many interactions between plants and microbes begin with specific recognition. The nature of this recognition, and the interpretation of subsequent signal transduction by both plant and microbe have profound impact on the outcome of the interaction.”
** Darst, Seth A, Rockefeller University – Jack Fishman Professor, Laboratory of Molecular Biophysics. “Dr. Darst’s research explores the mechanism and regulation of transcription by determining the three-dimensional structures of RNA polymerase and other associated proteins.”
** Davies, David R, National Institutes of Health – Research Statement: Structure Analysis of Proteins and Nucleic Acids
** Davis, Margaret B, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis – Regents’ Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior. Conservation Biology, Ecology, Quaternary Paleoecology Minor. Interests: Quaternary paleoecology; history of forest communities; past changes in geographical distributions of forest species; effects of soil development on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; earth system science and past and future global change. “My research concerns long-term forest dynamics in an old-growth forest in northern Michigan. ”
** De Camilli, Pietro V, Yale University School of Medicine – Eugene Higgins Professor of Cell Biology and Neurobiology. Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI). Director, Yale Program in Cellular Neuroscience, Neurodegeneration and Repair (CNNR). Membrane dynamics in the endocytic pathway with emphasis on endocytic and recycling membrane traffic at neuronal synapses.
** Dean, Caroline, John Innes Centre – Programme Leader, Cell & Developmental Biology. “The Dean lab is investigating the molecular control of flowering time, focusing specifically on the acceleration of flowering by prolonged cold, a process known as vernalization. Using Arabidopsis thaliana as a model system we are analysing genes conferring a vernalization requirement and are identifying and characterising genes that mediate a vernalization response.”
** DeFries, Ruth S, Columbia University – Denning Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology. “Ruth DeFries examines human transformation of the landscape and its consequences for climate, biogeochemical cycling, biodiversity, and other ecosystem services that make our planet habitable. […] A particular focus is tropical deforestation and its impacts on atmospheric carbon emissions. DeFries examines land use changes over broad scales through the lens of satellite observations. She is actively involved in linking scientific information into policy decisions.
** Deisenhofer, Johann, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas – Virginia and Edward Linthicum Distinguished Chair in Biomolecular Science. Ph.D. Experimental Physics. 1988 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (shared with R. Huber and H. Michel). “Current projects include: iron transporters from the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria, HMG-CoA reductase, […]”
** Delmer, Deborah P, University of California, Davis- Professor Emeritus, Plant Biology. Research Interests: Identification of genes involved in synthesis of cellulose and callose in higher plants; mode of action of herbicide(s) which affect cellulose biosynthesis.
** DeLong, Edward F, Massachusetts Institute of Technology – Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Division of Biological Engineering. Ph.D. Marine Biology 1986. “Our lab is currently engaged in applying contemporary genomic technologies to dissect complex microbial assemblages.[…]”
** DeRosier, David J, Brandeis University – Professor of Biology, Emeritus. Macromolecular Assemblies, Motors, Actin Cytoskeleton
** Diener, Theodor O, University of Maryland – Plant pathology. Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland.
** Dirzo, Rodolfo, Stanford University – Ph.D.: University of Wales, Ecology (1980). Pew Scholar in Conservation, The Pew Charitable Trust (1992). Professor, Biology (School of Humanities and Sciences). “In the field of conservation biology, I am interested in studying the consequences of anthropogenic impact on the disruption of ecological processes, particularly biotic interactions.”
** Dixon, Jack E, Howard Hughes Medical Center – Jack E. Dixon, Ph.D., serves as Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer. Ph D Chemistry. His research has focused on a group of proteins called protein tyrosine phosphatases that govern a key biochemical reaction in which a phosphate group is added to another protein. Dixon continues to maintain a laboratory at UCSD, where he is also a professor of pharmacology, cellular and molecular medicine, chemistry, and biochemistry.
** Donoghue, Michael J, Yale University – G. Evelyn Hutchinson Professor Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.On-going research in the lab involves at least five areas: phylogenetic systematics, character evolution, diversification, biogeography, historical ecology. Michael has been working on the biogeography and the historical assembly of plant communities around the Northern Hemisphere.
** Doolittle, Russell F, University of California, San Diego – Research Professor, UCSD. Our group is mainly concerned with the structure and evolution of proteins. Our second major research interest is laboratory-based and deals with the invention and evolution of vertebrate blood plasma proteins, and expecially the clotting proteins.
** Dunne, Thomas, University of California, Santa Barbara – School of Environmental Science and management. Professor — Geomorphology, Hydrology. PhD, Geography, Johns Hopkins University. Conducts field and theoretical research in fluvial geomorphology and in the application of hydrology, sediment transport, and geomorphology to landscape management and hazard analysis. Since coming to the Bren School in 1996, he has studied erosion in the Andes, and hydrology, sediment transport, and floodplain sedimentation in the Amazon River basin of Brazil and Bolivia and the Central Valley of California.
So far:
91 names
1 Grand-father of Climate Science: Broecker, Wallace S. (a geologist)
2 Meteorologists: Crutzen, Paul J; Manabe, Syukuro. (Weather is not climate, or so they say)
And now I’ll be nice:
2 Geologists: Edward Anders; Dalrymple, Brent G.
2 Geophysicists: Cazenave, Anny; Melosh, Jay H. (Does geophysics count as climate science???)
7 / 91 = 7,7% of list signitaries might be “climate scientists”.
255 letter signitaries out of 2100 NAS members: 12.1% Now, combining…
I had enough for one day.
Apparently, a few too many people with advanced degrees in the fields of the sciences, the humanities, and the whatnots, appear to be wandering around the planet with the much mistaken impression that their years of study, and their sheepskin on the wall, have given them the papal gift of infallibility in any matter under the Sun, and some imaginary social status akin to that of British Royal Family or the European Elite de Elite or the Chinese Communist Party.
The problem isn’t about Global Climate Change, it appears to be all about Global Academic Pollution.
mikael pihlström says:
May 7, 2010 at 12:52 pm
“You overestimate their (CS) power by a factor of thousands. The US
deficit is 12 trillion dollars, caused by wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, the
Financial crisis . You cite Paul Craig Roberts; he is really angry about the
Wall street crisis, not climate policy. To pretend that a cap and trade
policy comes even close to the sums utterly wasted due to above
political choices is ridiculous.
Trade and cap will not shut down energy use, just provide incentives
for a gradual shift to renewables.”
This is so ignorant one hardly knows where to begin.
1] You overestimate their (CS) power by a factor of thousands.
The power of [CS] lies in providing the pretext for a global transformation of the world economic structure, which has been relentlessly pursued by the statist collectivist forces, who are the main proponents of carbon demonization, for more than a century. The deleterious consequences of such a transformation for liberty and prosperity globally cannot possibly be overestimated.
2]The US deficit is 12 trillion dollars, caused by wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, the
Financial crisis .
2a] The US deficit is 12 trillion dollars
Check this site:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
the debt will be 13 trillion very shortly. Keep this open in a separate window we will be referring back to it.
2b] caused by wars
As per the previous, despite two active wars and more than half a century of subsidizing the national defense of our EU allies, so they could maintain the illusion that their socialist dystopias were sustainable, defense accounts for less than 20% of federal spending.
2c] tax cuts for the wealthy
Every major tax cut for the “wealthy” in my lifetime has resulted in a large INCREASE in tax revenue. What has driven the escalating deficits is out of control government spending
2d] the Financial crisis .
The latest financial crisis was created by a large number of very bad mortgage loans. The only reason most of those loans existed is because of the ill considered actions of of same flock of leftist politicians who are now in charge of creating the fix for their earlier ignorant blunders. I realize there are some who maintain the extremely fortuitous timing of the mortgage collapse for the prospects of a certain politician suggests that something other than ignorance was behind it and I have to admit they may have a point.
When you examine the cast of characters involved in creating the mortgage crisis and the list of “usual suspects” driving the carbon scam, you find the same names popping up with amazing frequency. Quite a coincidence.
The main difference between the mortgage crisis and looming collapse that will be pending if cap and trade is fully implemented is that, although there were a large number of bad mortgages involved, they actually represented a small single digit percentage of an otherwise mostly sound market. And even for the bad mortgages there was an underlying asset that still retained some intrinsic value. When the Carbon market they envision eventually implodes all the money involved will evaporate nearly instantaneously, because there is nothing of intrinsic value in any of it. Refer to the Debt Clock page above and consider the number under “Currency and Credit Derivatives”. For those who have problems with large numbers, that 653 TRILLION. Global GDP for 2009 was about $58 trillion.
3] To pretend that a cap and trade policy comes even close to the sums utterly wasted due to above political choices is ridiculous.
See 2d] above.
Also recognize that the incredible growth in prosperity over the last century was driven by the availability of cheap and abundant energy. In every reasonably developed country every addition of energy has large multiplier factor toward economic growth. Any policy that dramatically raises the cost of energy while simultaneously decreasing supplies will reduce that multiplier. Even in the unlikely chance that the reduction is only 10%, the result will be trillions of lost growth.
4] Trade and cap will not shut down energy use, just provide incentives
for a gradual shift to renewables.
Unless you are including fast breeder nuclear reactors in the category of renewables, there isn’t a single renewable source, or combination of all of them for that matter, that has the slightest prospect of providing even a significant fraction of the world’s anticipated energy requirements:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html
Josualdo
If geology/geophysics counts as climate science, then count me in. But I don’t think so.
Thanks much for your effort and contribution!
In essence: “We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it up there anymore!”
“The Emperor has no clothes.” – possibly why there’s a few Natureists on there.
On a more serious note, it may just be that they were asked to sign a blank petition – ala Julia Stilgo from the Met Office post Climategate. In which case this letter is only a sign of naivety, rather than something a little more squalid.
What really ticks me off is this statement:
“Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.”
The way it is written, you’d think that no one, not a single distinguished professor from an Ivy League school, or even some lowly researcher from anywhere else, has suggested an alternative hypothesis to the climate forcings parameterized in climate models that can explain observed climatic variables over the last century or few millennia.
Come on now.
Can any of these very distinguished academics tell me why sea levels were higher (by a meter or two) during the last peak interglacial than they are now? I suspect anthropogenic CO2 emissions were pretty low some 125,000 years or so ago.
I think the good professor signers need to go back to school. Perhaps (hopefully) one of their teachers might make them leave their own special interests or dogma at the door.
Has anyone found a single climatologist in the list ?
This “scientist” on the list gave me a laugh …
”
William Julius Wilson,
Director Joblessness and Urban Poverty Research Program
“
Man, that iceberg in the photos gets around.
Polar Bear – Northern hemisphere
Emperor Penguin – Southern hemisphere
Who knew?
Here are the named institutions with 3 or more signatories.
I hope someone at each institution checks up on who is discrediting their good names.
I’ll do Auckland University since I went there:
Distinguished Professor Dame Anne Salmond
DBE, CBE, FANAS, FRSNZ, FBA, FNZAH, PhD (U. Penn)
Distinguished Professor of Māori Studies and Anthropology
Department Māori Studies (Te Wānanga o Waipapa)
Research Interests Māori society; indigenous cultures and lives. [i.e. not a climatologist!]
Other institutions:
Number Institution
14 University of California
11 Stanford University
9 Harvard University
8 University of California San Diego
8 University of Washington
7 University of Wisconsin
7 Yale University
6 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
6 National Institutes of Health
6 Princeton University
6 University of California Los Angeles
5 University of Pennsylvania
4 California Institute of Technology
4 Harvard Medical School
4 University of Chicago
4 University of Georgia
3 Duke University
3 North Carolina State University
3 Oregon State University
3 Smithsonian Institution
3 Stanford University School of Medicine
3 University of California Davis
3 University of California Irvine
3 University of Michigan
3 Washington State University
3 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
“We are deeply disturbed…”
Should leave it at that.
biologists, anthropologists, neuroscientists
I’m a bit confused about how neuroscientists relate to climate science, but the biologists and anthropologists have a much easier time of landing grants right now if the words “Global warming” are incorporated into the study.
Well, at least they aren’t taking money from the oil companies.
They said “We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association…”
These guys should be careful with the McCarthy analogy! They’re showing a lack of understanding of history that is only surpassed by their lack of understanding of science.
McCarthy’s tactics can be questioned. However, the veracity of his charges pertaining to Soviet/communist penetration of the high levels of the American government are no longer in question. They might want to try a quick search on ‘Venona’ (declassified intercepts of Soviet agents from the early 1940’s that were not made public until 1995) to find out a little more about the ‘settled’ history they learned in school.
My point is that when the Warmers claim that others are using “McCarthy-like” tactics against them, they are basically admitting that they are guilty as charged but don’t like the way the charges were levied. In this case, they’re effectively saying that while they know that AGW theory has its faults, only someone who is beyond evil would dare to point this out.
“Reply: and just because plate tectonics turns out to be correct, doesn’t mean AGW is.”
I’m not claiming that it does. I am arguing that the plate tectonics analogy favours AGW, not AGW scepticism. The same applies to Galileo, Darwin, Einstein and any other luminaries claimed by climate sceptics.
Penguin – http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=3726704/
Polar Bear – http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4095333-the-last-polar-bear.php
Here’s a quiz question. Do Polar bears eat penguins?
This letter of the 250-plus fools who proclaim themselves “scientists” is just another political move, and cannot be taken seriously as a scientific tract of any kind – evidence just is not their strong suit in this letter. It is just another example of projection. People like them are the ones who are actually guilty of “McCarthy-ism.”
K says:
May 7, 2010 at 7:47 pm
biologists, anthropologists, neuroscientists
I’m a bit confused about how neuroscientists relate to climate science,
I think they’re mostly employed to provide adjusted graphs of cerebral activity for their fellow adherents, so they all don’t end up being handed over to the Kevorkian Institute for disposal.
So many thoughts I’m too disgusted to express. They have obviously tailored their grant proposals (in whatever field) to fit the AGW agenda to ensure getting funded. I believe the Oregon Petition has more signatures. A little ray of hope.
I noticed this name among the signatories
Ehrlich, Paul R, Stanford University
Need any more be said?
By my calculation, it seems that over 80% of the members of the USA National Academy of Science have chosen not to sign this letter.
I think it is good for Democracy when a minority opinion such as that held by this relatively small cadre of biologists, anthropologists, zoologists, etc. is published.
I wonder how many of the signers are familiar with the contrarians’ case other than through the lens of RC, CP, etc. Less than 50% I suspect.
Dave Wendt says:
May 7, 2010 at 4:30 pm
mikael pihlström says:
May 7, 2010 at 12:52 pm
“You overestimate their (CS) power by a factor of thousands. The US
deficit is 12 trillion dollars, caused by wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, the
Financial crisis . You cite Paul Craig Roberts; he is really angry about the
Wall street crisis, not climate policy. To pretend that a cap and trade
policy comes even close to the sums utterly wasted due to above
political choices is ridiculous.
Trade and cap will not shut down energy use, just provide incentives
for a gradual shift to renewables.”
——
“This is so ignorant one hardly knows where to begin.”
Leftist politicians caused the bank crisis? Not unfettered banking leading to
leverages 1/30 or more ? Not economic liberalisation since Reagan, not
the market? You are priceless.
Out of control governement spending: yes through expensive wars, bail-outs,
ill-advised tax cuts…
Technology progress has stopped? One would think that is the truly
dynamic component in the equation.
You don’t understand emission trading. OK, let’s use carbon taxes then:
an identifiable burden on the economy, but, it will not kill us, if we
just cut down on the stupid stuff: letting the private bank sector s…. us again
and again, wars and consuming over our means so that foreign countries
can buy our assets.
Since you gave the discussion a ‘national pride’ twist: my country doesn’t
get any defense subsidies from you, we don’t want your recent wars, our
socialist dystopia results in high ratings on comparative life satisfaction
scales and very few people die because of lacking universal health care.
But, there is much to improve and there are many admirable things in
the US system to.
Dave Wendt says:
May 7, 2010 at 4:30 pm
You forgot to list;
Co2 Cap and Trade “MAY” make us independent of “Foreign Oil” only to make us dependent on “Foreign Carbon Credits”
How stupid is that?
The Head man at the CCX said if Cap and Trade becomes law, it will be a 10 Trillion marker per year.
The CEO of AEP, (On CBNC Squawk Box) CO2 Cap and Trade, will cause the Electric rate to jump from 4 cents to 7 cents per Kw.
stevengoddard says:
May 7, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Josualdo
If geology/geophysics counts as climate science, then count me in. But I don’t think so.
Thanks much for your effort and contribution!
You’re welcome. I think 91 out of 255 is a fair sample size. But I’m jut too mad! about this, I’m in for the jugular, and will go over all the 255, if possible. I think I’ll just post a link in the end, so that I don’t clog the blog.
Anyway, the big question here is: what is/should be a climate scientist’s backgound? Podiatry? X-ray crystallography? Gene splicing? Plant pathology? Something completely different? Is there such a thing?
Somehow, I’d rather have a geologist in it than ten molecular biologists. Just a hunch, though.
According to their own website:
“The National Academy of Sciences membership consists of approximately 2,100 members and 350 foreign associates..”
So about 90% of the membership didn’t sign the letter.
I wonder why…
Anthony, you might like to use this iceberg picture. It’s actually a gif
http://i39.tinypic.com/2s0g12q.jpg
Notice how short the shadows are at both the poles. Is it normal for the sun to be so high at the poles? 🙂
[snip – invites discussion of religion, we don’t discuss religious issues on WUWT]
mikael pihlström says:
May 7, 2010 at 12:52 pm
“You overestimate their (CS) power by a factor of thousands. The US
deficit is 12 trillion dollars, caused by wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, the
Financial crisis…”
Dave Wendt [May 7, 2010 at 4:30 pm] is exactly right.
Mikael P says “my country doesn’t get any defense subsidies from you,” which is absolutely wrong. Were it not for the U.S. paying the cost for their defense, the Finns and plenty of others all the way to western Europe would be speaking Russian today. And regarding President Reagan, he turned a dysfunctional incompetent’s economy around, and ushered in decades of prosperity by drastically cutting taxes and implementing free market, capitalist policies [which are now being completely reversed by Obama].
Flooding the financial system with $1 trillion in liquidity when the sub-prime mortgage crisis hit was necessary to avert a financial panic leading to another 1930’s-style Depression.
But once the panic and the threat of a run on the banks had passed, the prudent course of action would be to allow the markets to adjust on their own, letting inefficient, ossified companies go bankrupt, to be replaced by new and energetic, fast growing companies, and allowing banks that gambled with their depositors’ money to be shut down and replaced by more prudent banks. Instead, our new Leftist government is now the biggest single owner of a U.S. car company, with seats on the Board of Directors, and it is pouring taxpayer funds into its favored banks.
The far-Left Obama administration has used the crisis as an excuse to unnecessarily print $4 trillion in new money, to be doled out to its supporters — including the banking industry. That certainly is not capitalism. Owning the means of production, such as a car company, is a combination of fascism and socialism. Anyone who believes we won’t pay a very heavy price for Obama’s profligacy knows nothing about either economics or history.
The U.S. deficit, which has skyrocketed under Obama, is now being made even worse because the Obama Administration is putting U.S. taxpayers on the hook for the Greek financial crisis: 40% of the IMF is funds come from US taxpayers, and now the IMF is being tapped to bail out Greece. You don’t hear that on the news.
The U.S. tax dollars in the IMF and elsewhere are being poured into new Greek bonds to rescue Greece from its profligate government spending [sound familiar?] — and that debt will be JUNIOR to current bond holders. What that means is that U.S. taxpayer dollars will vanish when the new Greek bonds default, which they will.
And the Euro itself is in great danger of collapsing. Individual countries print their own Euros. The “Y” prefix on Greek euros will make those notes nearly worthless; holders are already frantically converting them into other countries’ euro currency, and into dollars, yen and marks.
The IMF can bail out a small country like Greece. But Spain, Portugal and several other countries are in a very precarious situation, and there is not nearly enough money in the IMF to bail out even one large economy. At some point, there will be a reckoning.
Finally, the simplistic idea that “the rich” are at fault is a stale old Leftist canard. Show me a poor person who creates jobs. Further, “the rich” pay all federal taxes. The bottom half of the population pays zero federal taxes, and in fact collects a large portion of federal tax receipts in financial assistance. Without “the rich” paying taxes, the burden on the bottom half of income earners would be much greater.
Today there are no truly “poor” people in America. There are only the less affluent. No one starves in America; in fact the “poor” are the most obese. The “poor” also have flat screen TVs, cell phones, larger living quarters than comparable Europeans, medical care, cars, air conditioners, ipods, computers, etc.
Leftist political and financial policies, implemented under both Democrat and Republican administrations, are the cause of today’s problems. More of the same is certainly not the cure, as Reagan’s successful policies made clear.
Smokey says:
May 8, 2010 at 7:08 am
mikael pihlström says:
May 7, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Dave Wendt [May 7, 2010 at 4:30 pm] is exactly right.
Mikael P says “my country doesn’t get any defense subsidies from you,” which is absolutely wrong. Were it not for the U.S. paying the cost for their defense, the Finns and plenty of others all the way to western Europe would be speaking Russian today.
NOT A DOLLAR, NOT NOW, NOT EVER, WE ARE NOT NATO EITHER….
And regarding President Reagan, he turned a dysfunctional incompetent’s economy around, and ushered in decades of prosperity by drastically cutting taxes and implementing free market, capitalist policies [which are now being completely reversed by Obama]. HE ALSO LAID THE GROUND FOR THE CRISIS BY
LIBERALISATION OF YOUR FINANCE SECTOR ALLOWING DERIVATIVE
MARKETS, CRAZY LEVERAGE RATIOS etc.
Flooding the financial system with $1 trillion in liquidity when the sub-prime mortgage crisis hit was necessary to avert a financial panic leading to another 1930′s-style Depression. YES, BUSH ADM. DID IT AND ALSO STARTED THE
DIRECT BAILOUTS…
But once the panic and the threat of a run on the banks had passed, the prudent course of action would be to allow the markets to adjust on their own, letting inefficient, ossified companies go bankrupt, to be replaced by new and energetic, fast growing companies, and allowing banks that gambled with their depositors’ money to be shut down and replaced by more prudent banks. Instead, our new Leftist government is now the biggest single owner of a U.S. car company, with seats on the Board of Directors, and it is pouring taxpayer funds into its favored banks.
SINGLE CASE, NO COMMENT
The far-Left Obama administration has used the crisis as an excuse to unnecessarily print $4 trillion in new money, to be doled out to its supporters — including the banking industry. That certainly is not capitalism. Owning the means of production, such as a car company, is a combination of fascism and socialism. Anyone who believes we won’t pay a very heavy price for Obama’s profligacy knows nothing about either economics or history. YOU MUST MEAN ‘State owning of means…”,
NO, THERE ARE GOOD STATE COMPANIES ALSO. I WOULD SAY OBAMA IS
JUST CONTINUING STABILISATION AND STIMULATION, SINCE US ECONOMY
IS STILL IN THE LOWS
The U.S. deficit, which has skyrocketed under Obama,
HE LARGELY INHERITED IT FROM GEORGE W
….is now being made even worse because the Obama Administration is putting U.S. taxpayers on the hook for the Greek financial crisis: 40% of the IMF is funds come from US taxpayers, and now the IMF is being tapped to bail out Greece. You don’t hear that on the news.
IT IS A PACKAGE: EU GIVES 2/3, IMF 1/3, US FUNDS IMF IN PROPORTION
TO THE SIZE OF ITS ECONOMY; I DOUBT THAT IT IS 40%. AND IT WILL
BENEFIT US BANKS IN CASE OF DEFAULT.
The U.S. tax dollars in the IMF and elsewhere are being poured into new Greek bonds to rescue Greece from its profligate government spending [sound familiar?] — and that debt will be JUNIOR to current bond holders. What that means is that U.S. taxpayer dollars will vanish when the new Greek bonds default, which they will.
BUT, MORE EU TAXPAYER WILL BE LOST – THE BANKS WILL WIN, MANY OF
THEM ARE US BANKS
And the Euro itself is in great danger of collapsing. Individual countries print their own Euros. The “Y” prefix on Greek euros will make those notes nearly worthless; holders are already frantically converting them into other countries’ euro currency, and into dollars, yen and marks. WHO CARES IF GREECE LEAVES THE
EUROZONE, IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THEM ALSO
The IMF can bail out a small country like Greece. But Spain, Portugal and several other countries are in a very precarious situation, and there is not nearly enough money in the IMF to bail out even one large economy. At some point, there will be a reckoning. YOU SEEM HAPPY ABOUT THAT PROSPECT? ANYWAY EU COUNTRIES WOULD BE AFFECTED MOST…
Finally, the simplistic idea that “the rich” are at fault is a stale old Leftist canard. Show me a poor person who creates jobs. Further, “the rich” pay all federal taxes. The bottom half of the population pays zero federal taxes, and in fact collects a large portion of federal tax receipts in financial assistance. Without “the rich” paying taxes, the burden on the bottom half of income earners would be much greater.
IT WAS ABOUT TAX CUTS: WITHIN THE PAYING POPULATION CUTS CAN BE DESIGNED TO BENEFIT THE RICH, MEDIUM OR LOW INCOME BRACKET. BUSH ADM MADE THREE CUTS, WHICH NOW BURDEN THE DEFICIT.
Today there are no truly “poor” people in America. There are only the less affluent. No one starves in America; in fact the “poor” are the most obese. The “poor” also have flat screen TVs, cell phones, larger living quarters than comparable Europeans, medical care, cars, air conditioners, ipods, computers, etc. REALLY? THE US CENSUS BUREAU SAYS THE POVERTY RATE IS SOME 40 million PEOPLE
SOME 18 000 UNINSURED PEOPLE DIED EVERY YEAR BEFORE HEALTH REFORM.
Leftist political and financial policies, implemented under both Democrat and Republican administrations, are the cause of today’s problems. More of the same is certainly not the cure, as Reagan’s successful policies made clear.
mikael pihlström, May 8, 2010 at 8:34 am:
If you believe that without the opposition of the U.S. following WWII, that Finland, bordering the Soviet Union, would not have been annexed by the U.S.S.R, then you are completely delusional.
And it was President Clinton, not Reagan, who allowed banks to act as brokerage houses, selling derivatives that were rated AAA but were, in fact, junk. Banks, being new at the derivatives market, learned their lessons at the expense of shareholders [no bank depositors were hurt due to FDIC insurance; only the taxpayers were hurt].
I already pointed out that the original need for liquidity was provided when the markets tanked. [George W. Bush was President then, try to pay attention.] But once the crisis had passed, and panic driven bank runs were avoided, Obama continued unnecessarily spending at a rate more than 400% higher than GWB. [And replying in all capital letters indicates your lack of any coherent, logical, and historically accurate arguments, which is anyway typical of most Leftists.]
I also note that almost 80% of the stimulus dollars have not yet been spent. They are being held in reserve by the Obama administration so they can flood the economy with a temporary stimulus leading into the 2012 election. In other words, Obama is going to use the stimulus money, intended to help the economy right now, to try and buy the election. He accepts seeing the country hammered financially, with U-6 unemployment at over 17%, if it means getting re-elected.
Next, your flippant ignorance of the effects of Greek euros becoming worthless is no surprise. That’s why you can hand-wave away the situation in Greece. Economic illiteracy aside, if the Euro fails in Greece, there will be little confidence in the euros of other countries, with only a few exceptions such as Germany. Each country’s euros will have a different value, so why even have euros, if they are no different than the national currencies they replaced? When confidence in a currency is lost, there are major repercussions. Look at the Zimbabwe dollar for a recent example.
You say there are government owned companies that are successful. Name them — and do not include any that receive direct taxpayer subsidies in order to survive. Name one. Before you go off on your usual tangents, name one “good state owned company” that doesn’t get taxpayer subsidies to stay in business.
There is no precedent in the U.S. for the government to buy a controlling interest in a U.S. automaker, and placing its partisan bureaucrats on the Board of Directors. But once again, you hand-wave away this astonishing precedent by saying “SINGLE CASE.”
The government is not guaranteeing a loan [which would be bad enough]; it has bought a major part of General Motors outright — for over $50 billion. That certainly violates the fiduciary duty of the company toward its shareholders, and favors the company’s union instead — a union which has not had to give up anything at all, and still has its high school graduates making $30+ an hour, plus enviable benefits, for rote assembly line work.
In a bankruptcy, the company would be reorganized, including renegotiating excessive union contracts to market pay rates, sufficient to allow the company to compete and succeed. But with the government’s ownership and control of management — including appointing Obama’s hand-picked C.E.O. — the entire burden of a giant failed corporation is placed on the taxpayers — who never had to bail out Nash, or Hudson, or American Motors, or any other carmaker that ever went out of business. It is *wrong* for the U.S. government to own a carmaker [or any other private business], and to compete with companies that have no access to unlimited government funding.
Next, you are wrong about the IMF, which is flagrantly violating its own fiduciary duty by in effect giving away its assets to a country that absolutely refuses to take any steps necessary to put its financial house in order. The IMF requires austerity programs to be implemented in every other country as a condition of providing funding. Why is Greece the exception? Why is Greece allowed to set the IMF’s terms? Why does the IMF not simply offer its terms, and allow Greece to take them or leave them, like it does with every other country? In fact, why is the IMF even involving itself in the European Union, which should be taking care of its member countries? Certainly the IMF did not financially assist Louisiana when Katrina hit. The federal government under GWB immediately pledged $200 billion in aid to Louisiana. Why shouldn’t the EU do the same for Greece? Why should U.S. taxpayers be made to bail out an EU country?
You are wrong, Mikael, in each of your rebuttals. Saying that European countries will also suffer is no answer at all. Saying that European countries will be affected most is likewise not a credible answer. And your ridiculous statement that 18,000 people died each year before health ‘reform’ shows the silliness of your arguments: how many people died with health insurance? Certainly many more than 18,000 out of a population of 307 million. Further, it is illegal for a doctor or hospital to turn away anyone for inability to pay. Your arguments fail, because they are based on emotion, not logic or credible facts.
Finally, President Bush, like any president, is to be highly commended for making any tax cuts. And it should be pointed out that the proportion of federal taxes that “the wealthy” now pay is significantly greater than prior to the Bush tax cuts. Try and spin that fact.
I’m about halfway (J’s). If you want to peek at the draft, get it here.
Josualdo says:
Anyway, the big question here is: what is/should be a climate scientist’s backgound? Podiatry? X-ray crystallography? Gene splicing? Plant pathology? Something completely different? Is there such a thing?
It didn’t seem to matter to The Guardian what type of scientist they were. And no one ever stops to ask what kind of scientist Al Gore is referencing to when he says “consensus among scientists”.
But when it came to the 31,000 in the Oregon Petition manmade global warming believers/advocates started getting specific and saying none were qualified because they weren’t part of ‘the consensus’, or working at a significant university, or weren’t part of the ‘2500 scientists in the IPCC’.
They also never took time to see if the ‘2500’ of the IPCC were actually scientists. Few are. And some that actually are scientists don’t believe there are disasters coming to the earth because of manmade co2.
But The Guardian presents this letter like it has the weight to make people stop questioning and to settle the debate. They are clinging to their politics and religion.
just wondering if people should believe scientists who say the earth stopped warming because the heat is hiding somewhere
i’m just saying
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
May 8, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Josualdo says:
Anyway, the big question here is: what is/should be a climate scientist’s backgound? Podiatry? X-ray crystallography? Gene splicing? Plant pathology? Something completely different? Is there such a thing?
It didn’t seem to matter to The Guardian what type of scientist they were. And no one ever stops to ask what kind of scientist Al Gore is referencing to when he says “consensus among scientists”.
But when it came to the 31,000 in the Oregon Petition manmade global warming believers/advocates started getting specific and saying none were qualified because they weren’t part of ‘the consensus’, or working at a significant university, or weren’t part of the ’2500 scientists in the IPCC’.
They also never took time to see if the ’2500′ of the IPCC were actually scientists. Few are. And some that actually are scientists don’t believe there are disasters coming to the earth because of manmade co2.
Yes, that’s what gets me mad. As long as it’s on the believers side, it could well be a vet (nothing against vets, hey!) or a divinity doctor. When it’s from the sceptic side, a Ph D in Geophysics is no good. “Who said/published that? Ah,… well he’s not a climate scientist, you know.” Double standards really get me out of my mind (managed to correc myself in time to pass the moderation…).
BTW – Draft revision 2 is up, here. All done up to the M’s with help from other readers here. This takes some time to get to the Z’s then evaluate the blurbs. My own tiny blog is frozen in the meanwhile.
>>Dan says:
>>May 7, 2010 at 6:58 am
>>Wunsch, Emanuel, Pedlosky, Munk, Manabe, Schneider, Crutzen, Broeker.
>>These folks are all giants in the field of climate science
Wunsch – oceanographer
Pedlosky – oceanographer
Munk – oceanographer
Manabe – meterologist
Schneider – biologist
Crutzen – meterologist
Broeker – geologist
Emanuel – meterologist but at least this one makes it onto Wiki’s list of climate scientists.
Josualdo says: (May 8, 2010 at 2:35 am) Anyway, the big question here is: what is/should be a climate scientist’s backgound? Podiatry?
Voting with your feet?
I think you’re onto something here, Joshualdo…
Josualdo says: (May 8, 2010 at 11:44 am) I’m about halfway (J’s). If you want to peek at the draft, get it here.
Please take a brief rest break to use a common pin to remove the gunk in your type keys (both upper and lower case “A” “a” in particular). Then some methylated spirits and an old toothbrush followed by a pad to dry them. Our eyes will then be no longer irritated, and you will be proud! (Sheesh… I remember those bad old days with pain…)
OPEN LETTER TO SCIENCE MAGAZINE
As a professional scientist I feel deeply aggrieved that a professional science publication like yours would see it as appropriate to step in, in support of the likes of:
Professor Jim “Hide this after Jim checks it” Hansen,
Professor “censored data- fixed data” Mann, (also know to his colleagues as “Tricky”)
Professor “I’ve got the wood, want me to make you a hockey-stick” Briffa, and
Professor Phil “ I’m a credible scientist – I just happen to have lost the corroborating data” Jones.
That’s the same Professor Jones who agrees that the Medieval Warm Period, the 1890’s, and the 1930’s were all just as warm as the 1990’s, admits he has no explanation as to what caused them but agrees it wasn’t CO2, and then says – trust me, the science of AGW is all settled. And don’t forget Professor Kevin “It’s a fact that we can’t account for the lack of warming and it’s a travesty that we cant” Trenberth, who is also confident that the science is settled.
It is insulting that you apparently believe that it is appropriate that expressing the same misgivings as they themselves apparently hold, can result in being dismissed as a “denier”, a pensioner, or some sort of unscientific, flat-earth, crackpot.
What’s the difference between a climatologist and a cosmetologist?
A cosmetologist knows whens she’s putting lipstick on a pig!
I lose interest in the document when it “goes on” about dogma and special interests.
If you ask “cui bono,” then they bono.
What would happen to a scientist who questioned global warming? Their career would be wrecked.
In Britain AGW is written into tenders for grants, if you didn’t believe (or admitted you didn’t), you’d get no grants.
Big Oil, knowing what side its bread is buttered now finances AGW.
Al and co make millions from carbon trading.
So all this tells me, these people have no idea what they are talking about. This letter is knee-jerking.
Until Greenland is a farming society again, then GW isn’t unprecedented, as simple as that.
” Pascvaks says:
May 7, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Apparently, a few too many people with advanced degrees in the fields of the sciences, the humanities, and the whatnots, appear to be wandering around the planet with the much mistaken impression that their years of study, and their sheepskin on the wall, have given them the papal gift of infallibility in any matter under the Sun, and some imaginary social status akin to that of British Royal Family or the European Elite de Elite or the Chinese Communist Party.
The problem isn’t about Global Climate Change, it appears to be all about Global Academic Pollution.”
Another problem seems to be that people think being competent in one domain makes them competent in others. I was listening to a programme on the BBC this morning where an actress was pontificating on the British electoral situation, and while as a private citizen her opinion (though potty) was of course perfectly welcome, her credentials for bending my ear on a Sunday morning seemed to be that she was an actress …
I suspect that 99 % percent of these people’s opinions are valueless because they know absolutely nothing about the subject in hand.
Roger Carr says:
May 8, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Josualdo says: (May 8, 2010 at 11:44 am) I’m about halfway (J’s). If you want to peek at the draft, get it here.
Please take a brief rest break to use a common pin to remove the gunk in your type keys (both upper and lower case “A” “a” in particular). Then some methylated spirits and an old toothbrush followed by a pad to dry them. Our eyes will then be no longer irritated, and you will be proud! (Sheesh… I remember those bad old days with pain…)
Eh eh. I know these too. I promise I’ll clean them up and change the ribbon for the final copy. (And must save on carbon paper, hey, that’s carbon anyway you look at it.)
On backgrounds: draft #3 is available here.
There are petitions and letters and petitions and letters. The Oregon Institute of Science petition has been signed by 31 000 scientists, physicists and climate scientists including 9000 Phd`s, all stating their belief that humans are NOT responsible for any small amount of global warming there has been 1980-2001!
regarding polar bears, in 1960 there were 12 000 polar bears, now there are over 22 000!! Of the 19 groups in eastern Canada, 17 are increasing in numbers. need I say more
Debate by petition is clearly being won by the AGW skeptics. If the alarmist contingent disputes that, then let’s have a series of televised debates in a neutral venue, with each side selecting its own debate team, and with debate rules agreed by both sides and strictly enforced by a neutral Moderator.
But the AGW side will never agree because they’re scared of the probable result.
As luck would have it, Gleick has a new book out the very same week his name’s got to a whole new level of publicity.
Does anybody know why Revkin defines the WUWT authors as “passionate web trollers”?
omnologos
People who threaten the Orthodoxy are always reviled.
Shona
You are absolutely correct. I have been in the scientific community my entire life, and if politics were left to scientists, the world would be a complete mess. Many scientists have an incredibly poor understanding of human nature.
Omnologos, SG
I think Science Mag will issue a ‘correction’ (Revkin’s blog post says so).
Finished collecting backgrounds and now proceeding to count chips. The draft (5th.) is still here .
I don’t think this is particularly an AGW thing, it looks more like some well meaning researchers who don’t really understand how research relates to science, or that defending scientists is not the same as defending science. I started a list of ordinary science/argument/reasoning issues here but I don’t think it’s worth much. It’s just a letter after all.
mikael pihlström says:
May 7, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Gail Combs says:
May 7, 2010 at 11:37 am
“The Climate Scientists are up to their eyeballs in the scam to fleece the public and cripple their economies. No energy means no industry means no jobs means crashing economies.”
________________
You overestimate their (CS) power by a factor of thousands….
_____________________________________________________________________
I have seen the collective “power” in action on a couple of subjects where I was at ground zero and knew the actual facts. Yes ” Climate Scientists” are only one part of the scam and not the directing force but they are a necessary part of the scam all the same.
I have seen enough “flinching” “team playing” and out right falsification of scientific data during thirty years as a scientist in industry to have become very cynical about the honesty and integrity of scientists. Their loyalty is to their pay checks in the many cases I have personally witnessed despite their private thoughts.
Mike you say “….Trade and cap will not shut down energy use, just provide incentives for a gradual shift to renewables.
If renewables were cost effective then they would already be in use.
This winter showed “wind power” a total fiasco because it did not provide power when needed. If the harsh winter had hit England a few years down the road, AFTER they had shut down more coal plants, there would have been a lot more people dying.
Biofuels are the same kind of disaster. Not only do they divert crop land from food production, and cause high prices and mega profits for Cargill and Monsanto, they are also wasters of oil.
“In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:
— corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
— switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
— wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:
— soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
— sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.” http://www.physorg.com/news4942.html
Solar cells have their own problem. The main disadvantages of solar energy is that its dilute and variable. Solar cells are high cost with a 20 yr life and requires batteries . Also not only are there toxic chemicals in the batteries, toxic chemicals are used to produce solar cells, from gallium arsenide to silicon tetrachloride to sulfur hexafluoride see http://www.etoxics.org/site/DocServer/Silicon_Valley_Toxics_Coalition_-_Toward_a_Just_and_Sust.pdf?docID=821
A new 2009 law protecting rivers in the USA killed any hope of hydro power. So that leaves nuclear as the only really decent power source. Unfortunately it is tied up in bureaucratic red tape here in the USA. The first nuclear power plant took 5 1/2 years to build and the last (1980) took 12 years to build at double the cost. I see no indication that nuclear will be allowed in the future. So I am back to my original statement. “No energy means no industry means no jobs means crashing economies.”
Hey Chasmod,
If you can get the exact items that Steven and Anthony wanted on this from AAAS; that is the references, dates/issues or whatever; just e-mail me with that info and I will try to find them and send them to you.
George
Science has issued a correction.
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/integrity-science-gleick/
Gail Combs says:
May 10, 2010 at 9:03 am
“So I am back to my original statement. “No energy means no industry means no jobs means crashing economies.”
—–
Which is a situation we possibly can avoid by having a sufficiently
long transition period from scarce hydrocarbons to other forms of energy?
Precisely, because it does not look so promising at present, we have
to seriously start researching renewables – the funding so far is too modest.
I have no affection for biofuels (soya, corn, or wood); besides endangering
food production they will conquer even marginal land (in Europe) and
worsen the biodiversity situation. Locally, there could be some satisfactory
applications. I hear that net energy yield from sugar cane is at least
defensible, but I have no deeper knowledge on how Brazil handles this.
Nuclear might have a minor boom again, but as you say … and uranium is
also a limiting factor. I guess many renewable techniques are dependent
on rare earths etc.
But, I am confident that engineers will find the solutions given time
and money – well, not confident, but I can’t see any other group
which could do it better. As an ecologist, should I not declare
that technocracy was the major cause of environmental problems
in the last century? Yes, but they now work and think in another
context.
mikael pihlström says:
May 8, 2010 at 1:41 am
Dave Wendt says:
May 7, 2010 at 4:30 pm
mikael pihlström says:
May 7, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Leftist politicians caused the bank crisis? Not unfettered banking leading to
leverages 1/30 or more ? Not economic liberalisation since Reagan, not
the market? You are priceless.
________________________________________________________________
AND you have not bothered to actually look and see what is true. There is so much information I do not even know where to start. Well here goes.
1913: Democrats (the left) pushed the Federal Reserve Act through Congress at Christmas. It was signed Dec 23 1913. A Democratic Congress and a Democratic President financed by the bankers, were elected in 1912 to get the central bank legislation passed. After over one hundred amendments the bankers now have control of the finances of the USA.
In 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt (democrat) was elected President of the United States. Roosevelt was an international banker, he floated large issues of foreign bonds in this country in the 1920s. The bonds defaulted, and people lost millions of dollars. Within 34 hours of becoming President, Mr. Roosevelt closed the doors on every bank and then confiscated private citizens’ gold to pay the debts of the Federal Reserve. He signed the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933 on March 9, 1933. He then used the Act to confiscate US citizens’ gold through an executive order on April 5th 1933.
More recently Bill Clinton (democrat) wrecked the economy beyond repair on November 2 ,1999 with the repeal of Glass-Stegall which tore down the wall between investment banks and S&Ls. Barney Frank (D-Mass) also has his fingerprints all over the recent mess with the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act which required lenders to make risky loans to low-income minorities to purchase housing. Obama and Acorn were also involved.
Obama then made matters worse by doubling the money supply in 2009 effectively halving the value of the dollar and making other nations question the use of the US dollar as the world reserve currency.
In the USA the democrats are the bankers Ace in the Hole. If they can not get something through using the republicans because the people would be too suspicious they used the democrats instead. That is what happen in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act. The whole thing is a dog and pony show for the masses. As the Russian people found out the hard way a dictatorship is a dictatorship no matter what supposed philosophy they hide it under. And the big hogs get to feed at the public trough not the masses.
“What unites the many different forms of Socialism.. is the conception that socialism (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) must be handed down to the grateful masses in one form or another, by a ruling elite which is not subject to their control…” http://search.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/0-2souls.htm
The bankers have every intention of being the ruling elite. I wish the left would wake up to that fact.
David Rockefeller when speaking at the UN Business Council in Sept 17 1994
“This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long – We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. “
So looky what happened in 1995, the ratification of the World Trade Organization by President Clinton a Democrat. It opened borders and allowed US jobs and manufacturing to be exported and sleazy poor quality toxic imports into the country. Statistics (courtesy of Bridgewater) showed in 1990, before WTO was ratified, foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002 this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP. http://www.fame.org/HTM/greg%20Pickup%201%2010%2003%20report.htm
An analysis of the 2007 financial markets of 48 countries shows the world’s finances are in the hands of a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations. This is the first report of global concentration of financial power ..http://www.insidescience.org/research/study_says_world_s_stocks_controlled_by_select_few
Both parties are owned by the bankers and big corporations but the left (and the right) are so busy cheering for “their team” they never see it.
First head count is out: by the kindest critera, at least 72.9% cannot possibly be related to climate science. Usual link.
“Science” should explain first and foremost how did they get to develop a mindset that makes them blind to the captions of stock images.
Hmm. Imagine a letter from a group of aggrieved money managers who claim they’ve been getting a bad rap — and leading off with a picture of Bernie Madoff.
Anyone found any psychiatrists (useful for people in denial)? 🙂
PS: Psychiatry might help some of these folks sort out their boundary issues 🙂
Gail Combs says:
May 10, 2010 at 10:23 am
“Both parties are owned by the bankers and big corporations but the left (and the right) are so busy cheering for “their team” they never see it.”
Yes, some point to that. But, I would not call Clinton
a leftist. He was much a child of Reagan and the era of
prosperity. The globalisation was also part of the wealth
creation.
On the backgrounds of NAS signatories, I just uploaded the “draft I hope never to touch again”, usual place. Graphs and all that. PDF, 571 K.
“McCarthy- like threats”
This phrase is absolutely diagnostic. Whenever leftists get into trouble they dig up Tail-Gunner Joe.
Too bad, Joe died 50 years ago. Too bad the Soviet Archives proved that there really were communist spies.
When you hear the words, know that your leftist enemies are out of rational arguments.