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.
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