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.
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 🙂