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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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.”