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.
I received an e-mail from British Airways this morning which made me laugh. You can now pay extra carbon offsets for flying first class!
It never seems to occur to “scientists” that we laymen are well able to understand the scientific system, without any need for talking down. Many, many of us understand the system better than the scientists themselves. Many, many of us understand the severe limitations of statistics on which they too habitually depend, and all too many of them do not. Much of the current mess stems from the single fact that we have people making firm conclusions using the statistical tool that they are simply not competent to wield. How many of them, I wonder, understand that two meticulously measured circumstances can be described as facts, whereas the mean between them is simply a mathematical concept – its validity not extending beyond the mind.
“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. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.”
This paragraph is a dillywhopper.
a) Threats of criminal prosecution – The threats of prosecution originated on the warmists’ side and had all the earmarks of being a political crime, i.e. if you don’t agree with us you should be subject to prosecution for crimes against humanity. Anyone convicted on those terms would essentially be a political prisoner. The only calls for prosecution I’ve heard on the skeptics’ side are for actual instances of fraud – misuse of research funds, hiding or fudging data, etc. Not that I think that’s necessarily wise, but it’s based on specific facts, not the general principle that someone with a different opinion should be thrown in jail.
b) innuendo and guilt by association – If we each had $1 for every time a warmist used the “they’re funded by Big Oil” canard we would all be exceedingly rich. They’re masters at the art of guilt by association.
c) seeking distractions to avoid taking action – Wrong. Many of us don’t think the actions proposed are worth taking. We’re not trying to avoid them, we disagree with them. The “scientists” in this letter can’t even be respectful enough to acknowledge the true motivation of their opposition.
d) outright lies being spread -Another case of the pot calling the kettle black. See b) above.
e) Society has two choices – I’m sure on a topic as complex as this society has significantly more than two choices. Your preferred choice and the strawman choice aren’t the only possible options.
f) But delay must not be an option – Says who? It reminds me of the Henry Ford saying from the early days of the Model T – you could have the car in any color you wanted, as long as you wanted it in black. If we’re truly being scientific, and not political, then delay may very well be an option. To close off one possible conclusion before you even start the deliberation means you are less interested in the evidence than you are in selling a particular conclusion you’ve already leapt to. It’s yet one more example of the bullying these scientists routinely engage in while decrying (falsely) that same behavior in others.
Anyone who signs their name to an article on climate controversy and it includes the phrase “deniers” should get therapy. Anyone who would sign on to that document can be dismissed as “reality challenged”.
Nice how they want the scientific method but ignore it not being followed and downright subverted when it suits them. Truth is winning and they are grasping at any straw they can. Pathetic.
Gosh….when I saw the original headline in the Guardian I had a sinking feeling that they had really produced a serious piece of work, and had it signed by some truly eminent scientists.
Having read it, neither is true.
If this is the best that the warmists can produce, then their arguments really are crumbling. Hardly worthy of a 6th form debating society, certainly not of any serious attention. Together with the shoddy and superficial work from both Oxburgh and the Parliamentary enquiry, one has to wonder if these guys are trying to play in the Champions League or just Sunday morning football before the pub opens?
“wanted to express support for climate scientists”
It’s not their job to “express support”. It’s their job to do science. One is not the other. One is a political act. The other is science.
The Polar Bear image has the following comment on its iStockPhoto page:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4095333-the-last-polar-bear.php
AngieChia 2008-11-20 09:26
Rating: none
Downloaded File: No
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.
Anu says:
May 7, 2010 at 9:02 am
Gail Combs says:
May 7, 2010 at 7:58 am
“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……..
The Null Hypothesis says the Western Economies are going to crash anyway.
That a minuscule fraction of climate professionals, comprising only one scientist out of every 2,600 in the biosphere, is the principal driver of Western economic policies is not only preposterous, but there is zero empirical evidence backing up that ridiculous conjecture. It is rank speculation, nothing more.”
RANK SPECULATION??? 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.
From the letter Climate scientist declare
“(i) 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.
(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.
(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.
Much more can be, and has been, said by the world’s scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. 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.”
From Paul Craig Roberts who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
“I am amazed that the US government, in the midst of the worst financial crises ever, is content for short-selling to drive down the asset prices that the government is trying to support….The bald fact is that the combination of ignorance, negligence, and ideology that permitted the crisis to happen still prevails and is blocking any remedy. Either the people in power in Washington and the financial community are total dimwits or they are manipulating an opportunity to redistribute wealth from taxpayers, equity owners and pension funds to the financial sector. http://www.countercurrents.org/roberts250209.htm
Stewart Dougherty, a specialist in inferential analysis, agrees. It is now “statistically impossible for the United States to pay its obligations”. http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/08.09/metastasis.html
And here is an explanation how the Fed controls boom and bust cycles to their benefit: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=222963174&blogId=294391093
As I already stated the World Bank wants control of the world carbon trading scheme per the leaked Denmark text. CAGW is a massive con job. The frantic attempts to get the legislation passed quickly without seeing if the changes in the ocean oscillation and a quiet sun have any effect especially after a decade of level temperatures makes that pretty darn clear. True scientists without political agendas would adopt a wait and see attitude given the recent climate developments and no rise in temps. Instead they are rushing to push their agenda before the window of opportunity closes and they are shown to be frauds.
Zeke the Sneak says:
May 7, 2010 at 10:00 am
It appears to be some sort of a confession that all of the sciences are infected. 🙂
The ulcers of Cardinal Richelieu were infested with worms and he disguised its putrefaction pestilence with the finest french perfumes.
No, they could sword they are clean and well dressed, while imagining we don’ t smell the putrefaction and nakedness of their corpses.
Mike Kelly says:
May 7, 2010 at 9:27 am
2. There are no lab experiements under STP (0 C and 1 atm) or standard conditions (59 F and 1 atm) that demonstrate CO2 can increase the temperature of anything.
Well there were a few lab experiments which exactly showed that around 1860 by Tyndall:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TyndallsSetupForMeasuringRadiantHeatAbsorptionByGases_annotated.jpg
As the radiation absorption by CO2 (and other GHGs) was measured and no energy can be lost, I suppose that the CO2 in the tube (and the tube itself) warmed up, whatever the original temperature of gas and tube.
I’m a biologist, but I am ashamed that fellow members of my profession signed this moronic “document”.
For the record, I believe that the World has warmed, that a small fraction of this may be down to CO2, but that there is no evidence of “catastrophic” change and not likely to be.
PS higher temperatures and CO2 are good for plants = primary productivity = more food
mikael pihlström :
No, believe me, it is not like that. It is so easy to see!. A proverb says: “God blinds people he does not want them to see”
What will surprise the many: Politicians will change sides BEFORE than their “science” advisors: They are not fool but they are practical men, if their assets are in danger, they will “recycle” their disposable assistants. This will happend before you even noticed it. Remember: “He who laughs the last laughs the better”
What, Mary Jane West-Eberhard from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute doesn’t give this letter and what it stands for enough credence? Afterall, she did publish the definitive “game” changing climate change paper:
Mary Jane West-Eberhard. 2005. The maintenance of sex as a developmental trap due to sexual selection. Quarterly Review of Biology 80(1): 47-53.
I mean, come on, when we mean consensus, why can we not include Brian Larkins, who has NEVER been a lead author on any publication, but was last author on:
David R. Holding, Marissa Otegui, Bailin Li , B., Robert B. Meeley, Thao Dam, Brenda G. Hunter, Rudolf Jung and Brian A. Larkins (2007) The maize Floury1 gene encodes a novel ER protein involved in zein protein-body formation. Plant Cell 19, 2569-2582.
Otherwise we would never know the detrimental effect of global warming on corn proteins.
toby says:
May 7, 2010 at 10:12 am
The letter said 11 Nobel Laureates. But this is the usual method of the warmist dogmatic alarmist. Use the sausage principle – the skin of the truth stuffed with lies, multiplied by ten!
The signers are mostly FAGTs (Feeders At the Government Trough), so they have no chance of staying in the trade if they commit heresy and buck the consensus. 11 Nobel Laureates? Did Arafat sign before he died, or Jimmy or Algore? A badge of dishonor, this prize, except in the medical field these days, and even these get it sometimes for things like embryonic stem cell “research” (no prize for the successful adult stem cell researcher, of course).
Which brings up the similarities between the fundamentalist warm-monger movement and the eugenics movement in the 30s. Yes, there was a consensus to remove the useless eaters, and Joe Kennedy, Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood), and Josef Mengele all were among the leaders of the “consensus”. Stalin and Lysenko loved it, it justified the slaughter of the sub-human Ukrainians. The lowly were the scourge of the earth. As is viewed the developing world today, who must be “population controlled” (read killed), according to the true warmist believers. Smarmy elitists, the lot.
We learn little from history – but because of the free interchange of information now, it is open for discussion.
“Look out kid
They keep it all hid
Better jump down a manhole
Light yourself a candle
Don’t wear sandals
Try to avoid the scandals
Don’t wanna be a bum
You better chew gum
The pump don’t work
‘Cause the vandals took the handles”
– Dylan
mikael pihlström says:
May 7, 2010 at 11:04 am
So, 250 eminent scientists have wanted to express support
for climate scientists. And that is … unconstitutional, unheard
of, unlawful, somebody’s business?
It maybe that we have learned a few things about
“eminent scientists” over time.
http://video.pbs.org/video/1049423655/
kcom says:
May 7, 2010 at 11:32 am
“wanted to express support for climate scientists”
It’s not their job to “express support”. It’s their job to do science. One is not the other. One is a political act. The other is science.
—
They are scientists and citizens. I am sure they do their job.
As citizens they have every right to protest against an unfair
political attack on the science.
Dan:
you wrote:
“When you say “no one is allowed to question or go over their science”, that is not at all true–Richard Lindzen just got an article published. The real issue is what component of the science is in question: challenging the giant climate models is quite acceptable within the scientific community.”
Surprisingly enough, I agree with this part. Scientists do indeed question the science. But when we look at the rough and tumble of climate science at this level we get an impression that is completely at odds with the cut-n-dried, black-n-white simplicity portrayed by the MSM. If your only source of information is the newspaper, you can be forgiven for believing that humans are causing an unprecedented warming that will be rapid, accelerating and a grave risk to human existence.
Yet, if we even ask the first pertinent question – what do climate scientists believe – we find not a single, uniform consensus, as the MSM tries to misinform the public, but a diverse range of opinions. These opinions encompass everything from catastrophic warming due to GHG’s to minimal warming. There are arguments over sensitivities, positive or negative feedbacks, the role of clouds, whether the “missing heat” actually exists, effects of aerosols, solar cycles, and PDO’s. There is this level of uncertainty, that although uttered grudgingly by some proponents of warming, is ignored competely by the media, and is something that Joe Public is never told.
So when you then write:
“–but categorically claiming that “global warming is a myth” is to challenge the basic foundation of quantum mechanics and the thermodynamic and radiative properties of gases, upon which many fields of science and the functioning of many real-world applications and instruments are based,” you are doing the very same thing that I have just criticized the media for. You have taken one particle of fact – that quantum mechanics leads to a CO2 greenhouse effect – and left out all the myriad of differences, ranges of sensitivity and uncertainties that exist.
I like the reference to the big bang because it is more apt than the authors of the letter realise. There is no single big bang theory – that is a simplified story made for public consumption. In reality there are closer to 50 variations. Same with climate change. There are numerous variations. To argue one version of big bang over another is not big bang denialism. To argue over the various versions of climate change is not climate change denialism. The problem for the story writers is that some of the climate change versions do not fit in with their message. That is not science. It is advocacy.
@ur momisugly Dan – “Richard Lindzen just got an article published.” — And within seconds, that paper was gone over with a fine-toothed comb by the climate scientific community. I’m curious. How long was it before any scientist bothered to check out Mann, et al 98? Was there any criticism of that paper?
Atomic Hairdryer says:
May 7, 2010 at 5:56 am
“…..also managed to capture an unusual solar phenomenon-”
Merely 99% perspiration. Post modern Photoshopping. It is a Rorschach test.
ScientistForTruth says:
May 7, 2010 at 5:59 am
“For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category”
Including Carbon D’arkside alarmism I would bet good money on three out of four of the theories being anything from downright wrong via conveniently brusque to egregiously incomplete. Or various ratios thereof.
My 4 year old daughter must take the credit for “Carbon Darkside”. She is a Star Wars fan and I watch (too) many science programs. They are all steeped in this pickling fluid and she is catching onto the propagandistic aspect, as any innocent would. I am damned if I am going to stop teaching her. I will “not go gentle into that good night.”
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. The US
deficit is 12 trillion dollars, caused by wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, the
Financial crisis . You cite Paul Craig Roberts; he is really angry about the
Wall street crisis, not climate policy. To pretend that a cap and trade
policy comes even close to the sums utterly wasted due to above
political choices is ridiculous.
Trade and cap will not shut down energy use, just provide incentives
for a gradual shift to renewables.
I can assure you, the moment I see an unfair political attack on anything, I will be among the first to cry foul and leap to someone’s defense.
Key word here, is “unfair”. What would be “fair”? Giving back in kind what they have dished out to skeptics? Judging by the actions of the warmists so far, they’d probably drop dead in their tracks from rage.
“James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will call today for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
This needs to be met with a slap. The Laframboise Approach of creating groups to multiple-check references and backgrounds in batches could be an idea.
Vincent says:
May 7, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Yet, if we even ask the first pertinent question – what do climate scientists believe – we find not a single, uniform consensus, as the MSM tries to misinform the public, but a diverse range of opinions. These opinions encompass everything from catastrophic warming due to GHG’s to minimal warming. There are arguments over sensitivities, positive or negative feedbacks, the role of clouds, whether the “missing heat” actually exists, effects of aerosols, solar cycles, and PDO’s. There is this level of uncertainty, that although uttered grudgingly by some proponents of warming, is ignored competely by the media, and is something that Joe Public is never told.
———————-
You describe an ideal situation – something like that could have
happened, but history went in other direction: scepticism was captured
by a ruthless political disinformation campaign. The mainstream
scientific establishment will not and should not, engage with them.
Individual sceptic contributions in earnest is another thing.
Some interesting comments on the KQED Climate Watch Blog, over 50 California scientists signed the letter, but some high profile California scientist are missing from the list.
A total of 255 scientists signed the letter, which was published this week in the journal Science (available by subscription only). High-profile signers include Paul Ehrlich and Stephen Schneider, both based at Stanford.
Perhaps just as interesting as who signed the letter is who did not. Missing are several luminaries in California climate science circles, such as Dan Cayan and Richard Somerville of the Scripps Institution, and Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore National Lab. Santer has participated in media calls organized to defend findings of the IPCC. Santer has served as an IPCC lead author.
Gleick explained to me that the letter was circulated only to NAS members listed in climate-related disciplines. From a check of the proprietary NAS member database, it appears that Cayan and Santer are not members. Also missing from the signatories is Stanford’s Chris Field, who is engaged in preparing the next IPCC report. Field has been an NAS member since 2001.
According to Gleick, a few declined to sign as they were “involved in ongoing assessments” for NAS when the letter was circulated and wished to avoid any apparent conflicts of interest. Gleick admits that scientists walk a precarious line when they cross over from research into activism, but says sometimes it’s justified. “It’s important that scientists speak out when an issue is as important as climate is,” he said.