This is a row screencap from this Twitter page: http://twitter.com/scio11
It comes from the January 13-16th, 2011 Science Online conference held in the Research Triangle Park in Durham. Details at these URL’s
You can also follow us on Twitter – either the hashtag #scio11 or our official account @scio11
This is the session under which those words were uttered:
“LESSONS FROM CLIMATEGATE”
“You guys have got to start fighting back” is the message many climatologists are hearing in the wake the slanderous attack on their integrity that has been called Swifthack, or Climategate. But for many scientists, fighting back means publishing a really good paper in a reputable journal. That doesn’t cut it anymore. How should scientists and their communicator allies go about planning a strategy?
Panel:
Tom Peterson, Chief Scientist, NCDC
James Hrynyshyn, journalist, Class M — or Chris Mooney (he’s been invited)
Josh Rosenau, NCSE
(James Hrynyshyn)
– One thing to think about for this panel would be getting someone who has experience organizing successful campaigns. With the GOP promoting the idea of Congressional hearings on the “fraud” of global warming this discussion should involve strategies for countering their smear of climate scientists for political purposes.
==========================================================
Bishop Hill points out that:
The talk of ninjas and knife fights is interesting in the current atmosphere. (Tom Peterson is a scientist at NCDC. Some may know him for his work on urban heat island effect).
I’ll say. It’s far more than Peterson’s UHI papers. For those that don’t know, Dr. Thomas Peterson is the keeper and publisher of the most important surface temperature data set in the world, the Global Historical Climatological Network (GHCN):
Note the references at the bottom. The genesis of GHCN comes from this paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society:
And in case you don’t know, the GHCN data is the primary component of the NASA GISS GISTEMP surface temperature database, the most cited by media in the world:
from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
So in summary:
We have the NASA GISS Chief Scientist, Dr. James Hansen calling for civil disobedience and the Chief Scientist of NCDC and keeper of the worlds most important surface temperature dataset, Dr. Thomas Peterson, saying things like “its a knife fight”. These two people have the most influential roles on climate data on the planet. Their words cause me to question their ability to be unbiased scientists.
Add that to NCAR’s Dr. Kevin Trenberth’s recent diatribe where he calls concerned citizens of the United States “deniers” in a preprint for a public address, while at the same time attempting to reverse the null hypothesis about human induced climate change….and they wonder why the public trust of climate science is going down the toilet?
Two points of advice, fellas:
1. Don’t forget who you work for, the U.S. Taxpayer.
2. You’d all do better to keep your mouths shut, your public utterances are embarrassments.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So the climate scientists are calling this a knife fight and Glenn Beck is calling for an accord of non-violence. That is an amusing juxtaposition.
I wonder in the end if these people believe their own BS or if they are just pushing a fossil fuel free future? I have always tried to reconcile the facts and I just don’t understand how intelligent people that look at the data reach their conclusions. Is it only political for them or do they actually believe their own BS.
John Kehr
I’m hoping the congress has the guts to subpoena all datasets from all US agencies involved in weather and climate research and make the results public. Let’s open the debate as wide as possible.
[snip a bit OTT, try rephrasing]
You have to love the attempt to rename Climategate “Swifthack”, an obvious desire to reference a well-orchestrated political attack using the media — the “Swiftboat” campaign — rather than the sloppy inside job that was Watergate. The only hacks here are the ones trying to portray themselves as victims rather than perpetrators.
The left takes low class to a whole new level…
…I say encourage them to do more
latitude says: January 16, 2011 at 10:03 am
“The left takes low class to a whole new level…
…I say encourage them to do more”
Too right! They are doing a great job taking potshots at their feet.
Or as Napoleon put it “Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.”
And believe me, these clowns are certainly your enemy.
“1. Don’t forget who you work for, the U.S. Taxpayer.”
That can be fixed by a law suit for failure to perform.
“One thing to think about for this panel would be getting someone who has experience organizing successful campaigns.”
Here’s a guy who has talent organizing campaigns, and he’s available:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport-environment/revealed-how-eco-spy-masterminded-g8-protest-1.1080175
Karl Maki says:
January 16, 2011 at 10:02 am
“You have to love the attempt to rename Climategate “Swifthack””
It will backfire – if the media really jumps on this, public interest in things like HARRY_README.TXT might rise…
Given the statements above, has the CAGW crowd given up all pretences of relying on science and decided to strictly go with propaganda? Seems rather desperate and unscientific to this non-scientist.
“But for many scientists, fighting back means publishing a really good paper in a reputable journal. That doesn’t cut it anymore.”
They shouldn’t have devalued peer review in the first place.
These “boys” and to call them men insults the rest of us, wouldn’t know what being unbiased or adherence to the scientific method means if it bit them in the ass. I wrote an essay: What is a Scientist (http://retreadresources.com/blog/?p=337) back in August. Lots of other essays too but this one defines the noun scientist and these boys simply no longer meet that definition. I can think of many terms or names, both kind and unkind but scientist is simply not one of them.
I seem to recall that it was Obama (admittedly in a different context) who said, ‘If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun’. [No, honestly, it wasn’t Sarah!]
“‘You guys have got to start fighting back’ is the message many climatologists are hearing in the wake the slanderous attack on their integrity that has been called Swifthack, or Climategate… How should scientists and their communicator allies go about planning a strategy?”
A few questions:
1) Who has been saying “You guys have got to start fighting back”?
2) Which climatologists have they been saying it to?
3) If Climategate was a “slanderous” attack, then where are the law suits?
4) “Scientists and their communicator allies” – does the phrase “communicator allies” refer to the media?
5) As a strategy, could I suggest doing some decent science?
My, my…non-schizophrenic-paranoids, talking about Ninja’s and Knife fights!
So if using terms as, “lock and load” cause the schizophrenic-paranoids to act (which of course they really don’t, this is tongue in cheek) then can we suppose that a “crazy nut” may show up at either a:
A. Pro AWG conference, and commit mayhem..
B. A skeptic’s conference and cause mayhem.
I guess I’d better come to the point – NO “skeptic” that I know has advocated violence or “civil disobedience”. But on the AWG side?
Two points of advice, fellas:
1. Don’t forget who you work for, the U.S. Taxpayer. . .
No, they work for the government.
So do us taxpayers.
Certainly, if it were slander, it would be actionable, however, it would also allow the ‘other side’ the right of discovery, as truth is an absolute defense in such trials. It is enlightening that they have chosen not to engage in that route of action, particularly should the claims of alarmists be true.
In either case, it would open the system to public inquiry as part of the right of discovery in civil trial. Libel, as well, bears the same burden. Such suits would be extremely telling.
Libel and slander would refer to damages to both reputation and economic wellbeing, as the two may be linked. Real damages would have to be shown, and often done (at least in the United States, at the option of both injured party and defendant, before a jury).
My statement to those who claim the ‘attack’ to be ‘slanderous’… why don’t you put your money where your mouth is? File a slander suit. See what shakes out….
James Evans says:
January 16, 2011 at 10:54 am (Edit)
“‘You guys have got to start fighting back’ is the message many climatologists are hearing”
A few questions:
1) Who has been saying “You guys have got to start fighting back”?
Sounds like Greg Craven to me.
I’ve been thinking for a long tine now that there’s only one thing left to make AGW a true religion, violence, this is the final stand that the AGW theorists have left in defending there belief.
It may take generations before science can recover from this.
Si Mr. Peterson’s Dept. is the keeper of the historical data upon which GCHN is based.
That Dept. could not account for the missing records that their inventory list indicated they had.
Upon repeated hand-offs to various persons, the last one in line asked “What was it that you wanted?”.
Repeat request. Same result.
And we are supposed to believe that this knife-fight Dept. has integrity?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Enjoy mixing it up with your GOP admirers.
The level of desperation by AGW supporters seems to be rising exponentially (unlike temperatures) over the last several months. It does seem that every time they try to bolster their case, they only make it worse. This is a case in point. We are not idiots. We see precisely the political games you are playing – rather than the science you ought to be doing.
Also, this is manifested in how all weather events lately are blamed on AGW, climate change, climate disruption or what ever the term de jour is. This isn’t working out so well either – In Australia, they were blaming drought on AGW, now they are blaming flooding on it. In the US & UK, lack of snow was blamed on AGW, now snowstorms & cold are blamed on AGW. Again, we are not idiots – all you are doing is digging yourselves into a deeper hole with your contradictions.
Try to get back to some real, non-politicized research if you are capable. That is your best strategy for regaining public trust. Please see Willis’ post if you are reading & can’t comprehend what the problems you face are.
In keeping with the theme: Does anyone remember the phrase “nuclear option” used by various congress critters and media pundits? There does seem to be an escalation in weaponry in many areas. Perhaps it’s not so far fetched to think that some AGW desperado will in fact resort to such means to attain what he/she thinks are justifiable ends. Oh, wait. That has already happened in the larger ecoloon community.
The question that springs to my mind is;
How can they manage shoot themselves in the foot in a knife fight?
Here is an idea. Drop the knife and tell the TRUTH.
For more than 5 years now, I’ve looked for public debate between competent climate scientists such as the one brief one between Trenbreth and Spencer on Roger Pielke Sr.’s site last spring. So long as those in the consensus position think of themselves as the smartest guys in the room which by implication means everyone else is dumber by comparison, they are going to come off as arrogant and folks will be defensive. All the PR in the world coupled psychological analysis is only going to make things worse. Isn’t that how it’s played out in the last three years? If Dr Trenbreth and his collegues want to convince me, a PhD in a hard science field, of the viability of their position, it will take a series of debates between the best people with opposing viewpoints going head to head on different topics related to weather and climate. If Dr. Trenbreth and his colleagues make the better case, the public will come to their side. If they can’t make the better case, the spin doctors won’t help.