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.
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