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.
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