Reader DJ writes in Tips & Notes:
Since becoming a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists when I found out all you needed was a valid credit card, my curiosity about who and what they really are has spiked.
Chief Executive Kevin Knobloch makes $229,000/yr, and isn’t even a scientist. He has a masters in public administration. UCS has a staff of 121 with an AVERAGE salary of $92,000/yr. 15% of their income goes to fundraising and administration.
$5.4Mil, or roughly 1/3 of their program budget is spent on climate, and $460,000 is spent on “legislative”. (Lobbying?)
I’m now receiving emails from them soliciting donations, in the same format as the save-the-whales/puppies/children/ pleas.
=============================================================
Seems to me like just another NGO with policy predicated on distributing FUD. Gotta love the way they combine global warming and nuclear war in the header. – Anthony
TBear: “Where is the pushback? Where, for that matter, is the outrage from the rest of the world’s scientists if AGW is a weak and wrong as this site suggests?”
When the system — encompassing all the institutional “authorities”, the highest “experts”, themselves — is not just slightly off-track but fundamentally broken (and it is, suborned by an incompetent “consensus”), individual scientists outside the system can only tell the truth as far as they are able, and it is up to the masses to listen and pick out the real truth, if they can. The layman is thrust upon the (to him/her) barren shore at the real limit of human knowledge, all the while being continually assured he is safe in the lush paradise of settled science. As a competent independent scientist, I have uncovered what I know to be the definitive truth (but only so far as to disprove the consensus belief in the greenhouse effect, not to have all the answers on climate that others demand, like children); but the masses don’t tune in to it, they can’t focus upon it long enough to learn it, in the cacophony of self-interested debate that inundates every medium of communication. Largely, they don’t WANT to know, they don’t want to be bothered; that is just one of the symptoms of the general breakdown, with a religious belief in the “consensus” (among the more activist masses) being another (and the religious belief in “peer review” as magical universal corrector being another).
All you have to do is click on my name above, if you want the simple truth (and no, I don’t make anything off of visitors to my blog site — it is a blogger.com site, and if you go there you may note that Google doesn’t even bother to run ads on my site any more, that’s how rarely people visit).
I had a close look at this outfit a couple of years ago. IMHO, it should not be permitted to have ‘scientist’ in the name as the membership seems to consist entirely of wide-eyed warming evangalists with a very definite left-wing agenda.
If we all join, can we vote against their next stupid pronouncement?
What a miserable on bunch of curmudgeons you lot are!. Their logo shows they care about the world AND butterflies. What have you naysayers got against butterflies? What did the butterflies ever do to you?
Sign up and pay up now!
I want to be concerned!
Andrew Harding says:
August 18, 2011 at 1:46 am
“………. I do not pretend to know a great deal about American politics so please don’t shoot me down in flames, Rick Perry one of the Republican candidates ……….”
================================================================
The man has come out swinging. But, Andrew, our politicians are much like everyone else’. What they say on the campaign trail is often markedly different than what they practice in office. I also believe Bachmann could be classified as skeptical, while Romney could be called a luke warmer, in that he’s stated that he believes man has altered the earth’s temp, but he’s not going to make it an issue. I don’t think a Republican could be what one would call an alarmist and win the nomination, so their stated positions may be more pragmatic than anything else. But, I’ve a feeling Perry is truly skeptical but I’m not sure how much each of the named candidates, or any politicians (save for a couple such as Inhofe) have actually looked at the science.
From Murray Grainger on August 18, 2011 at 5:41 am:
Do you really want me to get into that? Let’s just say I don’t have a problem with most butterflies like Monarchs. But that Venus one… Arrgghh!!
A quick scan of their “National Advisory Board” turns up Ed Begley Jr. and Dr. David Suzuki. I couldn’t find Dr. Phil or ET though.
It is admirable the remarkable ingenuity of some people to make money out of thin air. My congratulations, however some of us couldn´t do it because of inherited ethical principles. We use to get money by doing something called “work”. In the case you do not know what “work” means we could illustrate you.
Oh, wow. They had me at “free UCS mouse pad”. I iz a sigh-en-tist!
TBear (Warm Cave in Cold-as-Snow-Sydney) says:
August 18, 2011 at 2:27 am
“The word, `scientist’, used to mean something but not so much now. ………………….
Where is the pushback? Where, for that matter, is the outrage from the rest of the world’s scientists if AGW is a weak and wrong as this site suggests?”
==============================================================
TBear, there are a few things which need cleared up. First, this site, while being the most prominent science site (See bloggy award in upper right of this page) is by no means the only one. There are hundreds or more likely thousands of blogs that are skeptical in nature. Further, many of the world’s scientists have pusched back and are outraged. Go here for just one list of scientists who affirm their skepticism. http://www.petitionproject.org/
Continuing, if you were to continue to monitor this site, you’d see in the comment section credentialed scientists commenting here. You’ll also see guest posts by credentialed scientists. You’ll see peer-reviewed papers written by skeptical scientists. Just because you may not have witnessed the push back, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Why it isn’t more prominent or noticeable is for a larger discussion and the dynamics involved would be to great to adequately be covered in a single post. Hope that helps.
James
I wouldn’t want to join, even though I once was a “scientist” (I was, honest). They haven’t demonstrated much ambition, going by their website banner. Seems that they want only to “reduce the threat”. How about “eliminate the threat” and take us back to the “good old days” when CO2 was something released on stage at a gig, carbon was the black bit in pencils, DDT was eliminating malaria and scientists were respected for their integrity?
Several decades ago (in the age of “global warming” but before “climate change”), in my birth country of Wales (yes, with the deluded prince), an “independence” group started campaigning for autonomy. One of their ploys was to paint out english versions of place-names and substitute the original welsh, and to paint slogans on bridges. One such I saw read as usual “Free Wales!”. Some wag had more neatly added “With every five gallons!”.
fossil fuels and the companies (and Norway) seem to be doing fine!
17 Aug: Bloomberg: Norway Sees Longer Oil Era as North Sea Find Offers Hidden Giant
Statoil ASA (STL) has made two offshore finds of more than 250 million barrels of oil equivalent in Norway this year. The country’s biggest oil and gas producer yesterday said Aldous Major South and Avaldsnes in the North Sea are part of one “giant” oil field, and among Norway’s top 10 discoveries…
An estimated 60 percent of Norway’s petroleum resources are still underground. The country had an estimated 10 to 16 billion standard cubic meters of oil equivalent in recoverable resources by the end of 2010, according to a report published in September by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy.
“These are enormous areas, with enormous potential, where we can witness incredible things and we already are,” Borten Moe said in an Aug. 9 interview. “The activity level in general is high and the discoveries that are being made are raising the level of interest, creating a virtuous circle.” …
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/norway-sees-longer-oil-era-as-north-sea-find-offers-hidden-giant.html
18 Aug: WSJ: Exxon, U.S. Government Duel Over Huge Oil Find
Exxon Mobil Corp. is fighting with the U.S. government to keep control of one of its biggest oil discoveries ever, in a showdown where billions of dollars hang in the balance for both sides.
The massive Gulf of Mexico discovery contains an estimated one billion barrels of recoverable oil, the company says…
The company hadn’t previously disclosed the size of the discovery in what is called the Julia field until it was mentioned in the suit Exxon filed against the Interior Department last week in federal court in Lake Charles, La…
It has also roped in Norway’s Statoil ASA, which owns 50% of the Julia find. Statoil said it filed its own suit Monday in the same Louisiana federal court against the Interior Department to preserve the leases. Exxon is the field’s operator and lease holder…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903596904576514762275032794.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
RE: TBear
“Where, for that matter, is the outrage from the rest of the world’s scientists if AGW is a weak and wrong as this site suggests?”
Well, I think Hal Lewis was pretty ticked:
http://instinnovstudy.org/learning_resources/Critical%20Thinking%20and%20Logic/Prof-Hal-Lewis-resignation-letter-from-APS.pdf
Personally, I’m outraged and extremely disappointed in many “scientists” and organizations over this “issue”. I have dropped my membership of several organizations that “drank the kool-aide” and will never support them with my $ again. They’ve irreparably damaged science as a whole with their biased advocacy, arrogance, and self serving misinformation, unforgivable.
The “outrage” is alive and well out here in the real world with the chemists, engineers, biologists, and mathematicians that I know.
Why do think there are so many “skeptics” websites? OUTRAGE!
Just google “climategate”; any scientist worth his salt is outraged upon glimpsing into the world of “climate science” as practiced by an elite few and accepted by way too many gullible masses; many of those masses should have been skeptical scientists but instead all too eagerly accepted the paradigm of CAGW.
Fascinating stuff. Is it even legal to hand out “scientist” titles $25 a piece? I bet China will push the prices down further once they notice this market…
And I thought they were nice smart fellas in white lab coats standing around ringing their hands. Average salary 92,000 times 122 is 11.13 million with 5.4 going to climate change. Guess they couldn’t get NASA jobs.
If they were real scientists they would realize you could reduce the threat of global warming with a nuclear war. That is scientifically thinking. It would make nuclear war good and solve the AGW problem
I wonder if Harry of Harry_Read_Me fame is a member of the UCS? I wouldn’t be a bit surprised–that’s the level at which they operate.
Nuke says:
August 18, 2011 at 5:54 am
I want to be concerned!
Me, too. But I am now concerned by my lack of concern.
Would a ‘scientist’ demand this…? “Tell Congress What You Want for Dinner”, I assume so they can decide for you? https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2761&s_src=wac&s_subsrc=actioncenter Included in the ‘scientific jargon’ (their highlite) “Tell Congress that the status quo may be working for agribusiness fat cats, but it is not in the interests of farmers, the environment, or your family’s health!”… then the chain letter protest appears.
Seriously tho’, how good would that look on a resume come job interview time?
Interviewer: I see you are a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists?
Interviewee: Yes Sir, I was accepted and am in good standing.
Interviewer: Quite a credit for a young mann.
Interviewee: Thank you Sir.
And for $50 I can become a Concerned Doctor and a Concerned Engineer too? How about a Concerned Airline Pilot…. I could have sooooo used this in college.
All the best…. Jeff
I smell hypocrit. Let me use the logical extension of this Union of Concerned Scientists:
If you are an arm chair hobbiest, don’t bother debating climate change from the concerned sceptics view point because you have no street cred. BUUUUUUTT, if you are an arm chair hobbiest and want to argue for the cough-cough concerned “consensus” side of the debate, you could be Bugs Bunny as long as you have a valid credit card.
I will make a note of that.
Does the End justify the means?
Harvard hired a new dean for its Business School who has helped develop:
The MBA Oath
20% of new Harvard MBA’s have now taken the MBA Oath in A Promise to Be Ethical in an Era of Immorality
Will Harvard now return to its original foundation n for ethics? “Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae”(latin for “Truth for Christ and the Church.”)
Will climate scientists return to the foundations of science following Francis Bacon’s search for objective truth?
Francis Bacon
Send (2) Greenies box tops and 50 cents to ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’ and we will send you your official AGW science decoder ring and your official scientist union membership card!
“Can I, phulease Momma?”
What really disturbed me into pursuing this was that UCS is constantly referred to as a supporting group of scientists in claims of “scientific consensus”. Even in my local paper they point to UCS and say “See? UCS says global warming is real and man caused” (to paraphrase)
When I read this page and the supporting links I am outraged at the myopic view, the “contrarian” vehemence, and the clear warping of the very science they claim to uphold…
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
Like the vast majority here, I don’t receive a dime from ‘Evil Big Oil’, or any other fossil-based industry, yet I’m immediately thrown into that classification for saying anything to suggest that the science isn’t settled, and there’s too much we don’t know to be making the claims the IPCC, and UCS, are making. In the very 1st sentence in the link above, “The Earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause.” you’re taken to a link showing the proof. I read that proof.
I don’t believe it. Not that I don’t want to believe it (of course I don’t, to be completely honest), but because there’s insufficient science to back up what is presented. As soon as you show me better proof, I’ll believe it. Till then, I remain skeptical.
Until then, I find UCS’s statements offensive.
They want to stop Global Warming AND Nuclear War… but don’t they realize that nuclear war would stop CAGW in its tracks? They’re clearly not good engineers looking for the simplest solution.
This is what I think of when I think of the UCS:
http://nonamemovieblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/beneathapescultists.jpg