I guess Media Matters wasn’t enough? Interesting that they specifically target Fox News via the “Rupert Murdoch” mention. But I’d take their advice and send them alerts, there’s plenty of misrepresentations in the media daily:
Monitor the print and broadcast media outlets in your area and alert us to misrepresentations about global warming. Send alerts to Aaron Huertas at sciencenetwork@ucsusa.org.
From the Union of Concerned Scientists:
Promoting Climate Science for the Public Good
See our national advertising campaign
For centuries science has made the world better for all of us. It’s made our food, our air, and our water safer. It’s made our lives more productive and efficient. Science has brought us many of the conveniences we take for granted in our day-to-day lives.
But recently, science, and especially climate science, has become a political football. Organized interests seeking to delay desperately needed actions to reduce heat-trapping emissions have manufactured controversies and misrepresented the facts.
Such tactics are meant to sow confusion and lull the public into a dangerous complacency. But we will not let those who deny and distort climate science succeed.
UCS is leading a campaign to allow the voices of climate scientists to be heard and to educate the public about the overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming. To accomplish this, we are taking a number of steps, including the following:
- Working with climate scientists from around the country to disprove fallacies and educate the public about the real facts on global warming.
- Developing and distributing clear, accessible information to help the media and the public understand the science behind our changing climate.
- Building American pride in the dedicated researchers who are working to understand and adapt to the consequences of our changing climate.
- Partnering with Americans from all walks of life to set the record straight on global warming pollution and the urgent need to rein it in.
What You Can Do
- Monitor the print and broadcast media outlets in your area and alert us to misrepresentations about global warming. Send alerts to Aaron Huertas at sciencenetwork@ucsusa.org.
- If you are a scientist, we have many ways that you can get involved. Learn more by contacting Jean Sideris at sciencenetwork@ucsusa.org
- Tell Rupert Murdoch: Get the Facts Straight. Send a message today.
============================
h/t to WUWT reader DocattheAutopsy
“For centuries
sciencemath, chemistry, physics, engineering, and medicine has made the world better for all of us. It’s made our food, our air, and our water safer. It’s made our lives more productive and efficient. Science has brought us many of the conveniences we take for granted in our day-to-day lives.”Fixed that for ’em above.
The harsh truth:
In recent decades soft sciences such as climatology and evolutionary biology, which have contributed nothing of substance to make the world better for us, have been clamoring for undeserved recognition, made themselves the promoters and advocates of the culture wars, and in general have been a detriment to society.
And that’s the rub of the green, you send them articles and such about climate science and they will simply ignore them, la, la la, I can’t here you.
I guess its ANOTHER attempt to silence the bog-o-sphere, I’d suggest being honest but as any estate agent, banker, politician or con artist will tell you honesty is not the best policy.
They don’t seem to like Meteorologists – but Hollywood is represented.
http://www.ucsusa.org/about/board.html
I don’t understand why anybody but Commies disparage Joseph McCarthy…
He was correct… A book came out titled “Blacklisted by History” that documents all the ways McCarthy was correct… Ever wonder why Mao and his rag tag bunch of Commie dorks came to power?.. Commies in the State Department helped him by directing foreign policy to disallow help to Mao’s non-Commie enemies…
By continuing the meme that ‘McCarthyism’ is bad in any way whatsoever, you play into the Commie’s hands…
We need MORE people like the brave American Patriot Joseph McCarthy…
Stop disparaging a man who tried to stop the rot of Commie infiltration…
Stop doing what the Commie infiltrators have conditioned you to do…
Just look around at the America that is crumbling to pieces due to “regressive progressive” Commies who have been allowed to soften their image so much that the People chose an America hating Marxist for President…
The Commies demonized McCarthy… Why are you still going along with the Commies characterization when clearly McCarthy was correct?
Restore history… Restore honor to Joseph McCarthy who was fighting the same commies we are dealing with today…
Slightly off topic, but does anyone have a degree plan that indicates how you get a PhD in climatology? And how long has it been around?
Here was my submission to their request:
Thank you for your request for alerts on misrepresentation of science in the media.
The following web article
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/weight-of-the-evidence.html
used the phrase “desperately needed actions to reduce heat-trapping emissions”
As you know, the phrase “desperately needed” is a misrepresentation of an important and ongoing scientific debate, namely the relative roles of forcing, magnetic solar activity, cloud feedback, and ocean heat content, on climate change. I am part of a concerned group of scientists within the American Physical society who feel that media releases such as this will do tremendous damage to the credibility scientific activity — activity that has the potential to do so much good.
I therefore request that you add ucsusa.org to your list of organizations that badly distort the science for their own ideological purpose.
Turned my comment way above into a piece at American Thinker, which includes the link showing UCS’ 1997 antics, “”Silencing global warming critics” http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/silencing_global_warming_criti.html
Excerpt: “In all this effort, has the UCS ever actually engaged the skeptic scientists in head-to-head debate on the underlying science of man-caused global warming, and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt how they prevail? In all the UCS’ reliance on Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets.org for its accusations that big oil & coal corrupts the skeptics, have they ever shown smoking gun evidence such as “…according to Oil Company document ‘X’ dated ‘Y’ going to ‘Z’ accompanied with the instruction to fabricate ‘AB’ science document having ‘CD’ conclusion about natural global warming…”?
For some incredibly odd reason, the suicidal idea that a small group of people can manipulate the news and suppress criticism prevails, as opposed to a more logical approach where debate is won though the presentation of incontrovertible evidence.”
Djozer: The last time I looked the University of South Queensland, N.Z. was the only one with a degree program in climatology. As the program is entirely an invention of the 21st century (mostly as a marketing ploy to take advantage of the numbers of students seeking such a program who were ignorant of the fact that there was no such thing, plus, of course, as a means to gain more government funds) the number of actual Ph.Ds produced by said program to date is certainly few to none.
Climatology is, of course, a multi-disciplinary study and not a concentration in itself, explaining the lack of such programs. The closest related concentrations would be Atmospheric Sciences and . . . Meteorology. Go figure. It would also help if budding future climatologists paid a bit more attention in physics and maths classes; and maybe went outside and looked up a bit more often as well
Van Grungy – Of course McCarthy was right about “commies.” He was able to go so far because everyone understood he was right (as anyone over about 30 would remember a time when The Party was a mainstream part of American politics), at least up to a point. There is a difference, however, between McCarthy being right and McCarthyISM being right.
Defense of the Constitution can only be accomplished by invoking it, not subverting it. Is that not the very goal of the “commies” in the first place? Pete Seeger was right in invoking the First Amendment rather than the Fifth. If we wish to defend the republican ideals of American Constitutional Government against National Socialism the very first thing we should do is to refuse to invoke its methods, otherwise, as Thoreau pointed out, you might just as well fold up shop and succumb immediately; as the end result, either way, is the same.
Congressional witch hunts, Star Chambers, Super Constitutional Secret Police and their networks of [Your color’s name here] Shirts/Patriotic Citizen Informants are the enemy; not the solution.
What made American government truly unique in its time of founding was that it was built on philosophical boundaries, not geographical ones. The Ideal is the thing, not the Thing. Part of that philosophical ideal was that the ideal in question was one of The People; not the government. Thus only The People can defend it; not the government.
Any member of The People who wish to take a stand in this fight might well be advised to identify those who oppose this Ideal and bring them into the light of day, but to do so entirely within the bounds of the Ideal itself. A simple and easy first step in such identification can be accomplished by simply looking up the word coined to represent the repudiation of Idealistic government action: “realpolitik.”
And why any of the above might be relevant to the current subject and that of this forum is, of course, as many here express knowledge of, because the Climate Change issue is, at core, a socio-political one. It is the ideals of The Enlightenment that are under attack; rational thought and thus science itself – not a specific fact or theory of science.
When The Algore says, “The science is settled, the debate is over,” what he is saying is that the fate of science has been settled (within his “community”, there shall be no debate.
“Consensus” is, of course, a political philosophy, not a scientific one – and most of us who read this forum know what political philosophies stand on the “consensus” plank without having to name them – and which stand on the plank of civil management of discord.
Thanks kfg – just what I expected about the Climatology degrees. I kept hearing why that we shouldn’t question the experts, but even though I only have a BS in mechanical engineering, I could make their logic work. I’ve had enough thermo, chemistry, physics and fluid dynamics that I think I can work through a scientific argument.
The “consensus” issue is being pushed at all levels – my former employer wasted $250K on consensus “trainer”.
“For centuries science has made the world better for all of us. It’s made our food, our air, and our water safer.”
And engineers had nothing at all to do with taking the scientist’s delusions and converting them into concrete technology?? What hubris.
I received an email resulting from this thread, I think, in my personal inbox this morning. I’d prefer it if readers kept to emailing the UCS address Mr. Watts provided in the original post. I’m on vacation and will be back at work on Monday. I’ll see if I can make time to respond to your emails next week.
I’ve had a lot of interesting interactions with climate skeptics over the past few years. Most of the time, I’ve found correspondents are more interested in dropping their talking points and some vitriol into my inbox rather than engaging in a real exchange of views. That said, there have been a few instances where I’ve learned a lot from corresponding with a skeptic and vice-versa. That happens when the skeptic is willing to apply their critical thinking skills as much to their own views as to the views of mainstream climate science.
I would rather not address any of the comments here. I’ve found such interactions often turn into a shooting gallery, with nasty commenters far outweighing thoughtful ones. Typically, those interactions remind me of the old Monty Python “Argument Clinic” sketch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y.
Thanks,
Aaron Huertas
I left this message for the Union:
Flaccid science requires external support.
Weak science requires strong defense.
Agendized science is junk science.
Coercive science isn’t science at all.
But, robust science will stand on its own.
I’m afraid I see the “Union of Concerned Scientists” zealously embracing the first four articles.
I implore you to try robustness
I sent them this
“At last, we need something more to fight these horrid skeptics with. Who keep telling me to provide proof and evidence of Man Made global warming.
They mock me with taunts such as “The opposite of skepticism is gullibility”, I call them deniers but they laugh and point out that ad hominum attacks are intellectual low rent and signs of mental defeat.
I used to be able to take the high ground with several weapons but alas, no more. I would post the hockey stick graph but they broke it and our ‘ark of the covenant’ the computer models once seemed so certain but they only brings howls of mockery and derision with its ever apparent uselessness to even predict what day tomorrow is. Whenever I deride a skeptic for not being a climatologist they point out I am neither nor is al gore or most other warmists.
Whenever I point at peer review, they point at its corruption from climategate, making my points worsen as they reveal a tiny incestuous cabal of reviewers then reveal their PR papers – its horrible.
I even have one who challenges me with $10,000.00 for one tiny proof that I don’t possess – what am I to do?
Whenever I site an expert to put them down, they sneer at my ‘appeal to authority’ as they call it and deride me for being such a arse licking, subservient and non-thinking dupe.
We know man must be changing climate because of smoke and that.
Especially because nature is good and man is bad.
We know this because its true an all deniers are in the pay of evil big oil and they are bad.
We know this because last week was hot and this week is cold and an ice berg was seen.
please tell mr rupet murdock these facts or try to find one that links naughty mankind with AGW,
yours sincerely,
Ang StRiddyn”
Have some fun, mock them, they deserve it for being traitors to science.
Well, it’s interesting that they have a public statement that they are in the propaganda and media intimidation business. So their “game” is to have a leveraged viral media manipulation rather than an ‘open market of ideas’. Sounds about right for the style and tactics of that side.
FWIW, I use the presence of that kind of opinion manipulation as a giant Red Flag for when someone is a weasel and prone to deceptive tactics. Someone not to trust. Tends to be a very good indicator. Not 100%, but certainly over 75%. Sounds like they read Saul Alinsky during their formative years…
lets not forget john brogden’s famous list of press garbage for gw causes.
see numberwatch.co.uk
I would be less concerned with so called ‘global warming’ that they accuse humans of creating. The global warming they should be worried about is that which the scientists are creating by denying the existence of God and the liberal media that spouts wrong as right, and right as wrong. I would worry about the ‘warming’ and fire they will find themselves in for all eternity as they create hell on earth. I read the back of the book and we win and get a new planet from Heaven which God will take care of because HE created it. Stop worshipping the planet and blaming everyone else for the consequences of your own selfish power hungry atheistic hedonism. No amount of taxes or science is going to prevent the real global warming. ALL OF THE PLANETS ARE GETTING WARMER!!!! IT’S THE SUN STUPID!!!!! You best turn to ‘THE SON’ if you don’t want to burn FOREVER!!!! did I miss anything? GOD BLESS YOU AND THE U.S.A.!!!!
I just left this message:
Dear Mr. Huertas
I discovered today that your on your own webpage science is abused! See
https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2339&s_src=wac&s_subsrc=website
It is stated there that it is wrong to claim that arctic sea ice is increasing. Well given the absolute low on 2007 the ice is indeed some what increasing! Just check the facts! http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Your immediate attention and action on this matter is highly appreciated.
Best Regards