Climate Science Exploited for Political Agenda, According to Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

AAPS_logo

TUCSON, Ariz., Aug. 28, 2013 — /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Climatism or global warming alarmism is the most prominent recent example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda, writes Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. He compares it to past examples: Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, and the eugenics movement.

Lindzen describes the Iron Triangle and the Iron Rice Bowl, in which ambiguous statements by scientists are translated into alarmist statements by media and advocacy groups, influencing politicians to feed more money to the acquiescent scientists.

In consequence, he writes, “A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.” Prizes and accolades are awarded for politically correct statements, even if they defy logic. “Unfortunately, this also often induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status,” Lindzen adds.

Lindzen discusses key aspects of the global warming models, including their dependence on the “globally averaged mean temperature anomaly”—that is the average of the differences between the average temperature for the year at each weather station and the 1961-1990 average for that station. This metric is used to create an influential graph that resembles the daily chart of stock indices, but is of dubious significance. The change in the anomaly is tiny against the perspective of the temperature variations we experience daily, Lindzen demonstrates.

In normal science, models are judged by how well they agree with nature, Lindzen explains. In the climate “debate,” however, the models are given a claim to validity independent of agreement with real observations.

The highly oversimplified terms of the discussion in the policy arena “largely exclude the most interesting examples of historical climate change. The heavy intellectual price of the politicization of science is rarely addressed,” writes Lindzen.

Lindzen writes: “Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions. How can one escape from the Iron Triangle when it produces flawed science that is immensely influential and is forcing catastrophic public policy?”

Escape from climate alarmism will be more difficult than from Lysenkoism, in Lindzen’s view, because Global Warming has become a religion. It has a global constituency and has coopted almost all institutional science. Nevertheless, he believes “the cracks in the scientific claims for catastrophic warming are…becoming much harder for the supporters to defend.”

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a national organization representing physicians in all specialties, founded in 1943.

SOURCE Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) www.aapsonline.org

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/climate-science-exploited-for-political-agenda-according-to-journal-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons-221474241.html

…and surprisingly, published in the mostly liberal Sacramento Bee:

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/28/5687619/climate-science-exploited-for.html

h/t to Marc Marano of Climate Depot

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
AlecM

Good on you Dick……

JimS

I hope folks listen to their doctor. Unfortunately, too many don’t.

HaroldW

The URL for the Sacramento Bee article is correct, but clicking on the link doesn’t take one there; the URL is truncated for some reason.

Bloke down the pub

Once people get the idea that it’s ok to say that the emperor has no clothes, then there’s only one way this will end.

dudleyhorscroft

“example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda” should read “example of science being corrupted to serve a political agenda”.

cd

Now this more like it. At last preaching to many of the unconverted.

Joe

go to climate depot for the link

I thought it strange that he would publish in a Medical journal, until I realized it was probably the only one that was amicable to him publishing. Money wasted on the AGW scare is less money spent on medicine, which they are very concerned about.

Wow!
Prizes and accolades are awarded for politically correct statements, even if they defy logic.
and when the speakers defy law.
Thank You, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Holy cow! Look at the Table of Contents:
http://www.jpands.org/jpands1803.htm
From the President: Dialectic of Deceit,
– Juliette Madrigal-Dersch, M.D
Industry Consolidation: the Smoking Gun of “Crony Capitalism”
– G. Keith Smith, M.D.
The Fix That No One Dares Mention
– Craig J. Cantoni
Book Reviews:
. The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (Matt Ridley)
– Reviewed by Jerome C. Arnett, Jr., M.D.
. No, They Can’t: Why Government Fails – But Individuals Succeed (John Stossel)
– Reviewed by Jerome C. Arnett, Jr., M.D.
Is this a Howard Beale moment?

Hey I have a question…why is Richard Lindzen…an atmospheric scientist…publishing in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons? Why is that journal accepting an article on a completely unrelated issue??

Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Another group speaks out against the politicization of science.

Legend

Dudley, the original statement is perfectly acceptable and I believe what he intended. Of course corrupted is implied but he is saying that it is being hijacked (coopted) by the activists and politically correct scientists.

mpainter

It has been obvious for years, but these global warmers find personal fulfillment in shrilling their alarms and they will never be able to see that their dubious science is an ideological contrivance. They will never die, but they will fade away as the present flat temperature trend continues through this century.

@Matthew Souders 7:10 am
Why is that journal accepting an article on a completely unrelated issue??
The Politicization of Science should be a concern of every profession and voter.

highflight56433

“A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.”
Pretty much defines our education system, media, and commonly political inept. Eyes wide shut club.

Frank K.

It has been very obvious to me for quite a while that climate science is now a 100% political enterprise. Nothing gets published unless it conforms to the political aims of the movement. Just look at the abstracts of most papers publish in “professional” climate science journals…

Jimbo

I hope Lindzen is wrong about CAGW taking longer than Lyshenkoism to disappear but I think he’s right. This CAGW stuff is currently being drilled into children’s brains. He’s right on it being a religion now.

Guardian – 25 August 2010
“Why would a solar physicist embrace the non-rationality of religion?”
John Cook, who runs skepticalscience.com, says his faith drives him. But what does religion give him that science doesn’t?……But Cook’s second, self-professed, stimulus took me by surprise.
I’m a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25″, he wrote. “… I care about the same things that the God I believe in cares about – the plight of the poor and vulnerable.””
——-
John Cook – Skeptical Science – 3 August 2010
“….my faith and my situation are my own. But hopefully for those curious, you understand more clearly the driving force behind Skeptical Science.”
——-
Guardian – 3 November 2009
Judge rules activist’s beliefs on climate change akin to religion
“Tim Nicholson entitled to protection for his beliefs, and his claim over dismissal will now be heard by a tribunal…….In his written judgment, Mr Justice Burton outlined five tests to determine whether a philosophical belief could come under employment regulations on religious discrimination…..• It must be a belief and not an opinion or view based on the present state of information available…..”
——-
BBC – 25 January 2010
Using religious language to fight global warming
“If the case for tackling climate change is backed by science, why do so many green campaigners rely on the language of religion?“……The theologian and environmentalist Martin Palmer is also troubled by the green movement’s reliance on visions of hell as a way of converting people to their cause…..”Now they are playing with some of the most powerful emotional triggers in Western culture. They’ve adopted the language and imagery of a millenarian cult.”
For Palmer, who is a United Nations adviser on climate change and religion,….”
——-
Church of England – 22 February 2012
“Leaders representing most of the UK’s mainstream churches have today called for repentance over the prevailing ‘shrug-culture’ towards climate change.”

Marc77

The change in temperature is significant because the planet is big enough. I guess eating an extra grain of sugar could have a significant effect on your blood sugar level if it was averaged over a sufficiently large population. Averaging over a large population or region is a way to lower the uncertainty. After that, you have to look if the effect is significant locally or on a single individual. In reality, the difference between the warmest and coolest temperature of the day/week/month/year all seems to be going down. The UHI might explain it, but maybe the climate is really getting better.

“Climatism or global warming alarmism is the most prominent recent example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda, writes Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. He compares it to past examples: Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, and the eugenics movement.”
It is not only science and academia that is vulnerable. I have found that the AGW/anti-fossil fuel movement has methodically infiltrated as many social groups as it can through the the top-down, highly funded approach to publicity called “manipulative populism,” and I think we would all do well to familiarize ourselves with this term:

”Without meaning to, Mr Farage has, therefore, become a symbol of national protest against the political class and its now bankrupt methodologies of triangulation, voter targeting, focus groups, eye-catching initiatives and advertising gimmicks – all the ghastly apparatus that has been elegantly encapsulated by the political thinker Anthony Barnett in the phrase “manipulative populism”.
Started by New Labour (who copied it from Clinton’s New Democrats) and duplicated in turn by Conservative modernisers, manipulative populism has hollowed out the three main political parties. Voters have recoiled in despair from what they perceive as their artifice and deceit…”

Whether it is churches, or dietary fads, or hobby groups, or even alternative science, I have had a growing concern about all genuine, grassroots movements. I have been alarmed at how many have become co-opted into “global initiatives,” political and economic goals, and flattery and funding by fancy players behind the scenes. It really amounts to focus groups and audience targeting by NGOs, who do not care if it takes crystal skulls and aliens, or churches, as long as the goals of political governance and behavior modification are advanced.

Chris Riley

I think that it would not be a bad idea for Anthony to consider sponsoring an annual Lysenko prize competition. it might help “raise awareness” (to use a revolting phrase) of the poor scholarship that is the norm today amongst alarmists.

Gail Combs

Matthew Souders says:
August 29, 2013 at 7:10 am
Hey I have a question…why is Richard Lindzen…an atmospheric scientist…publishing in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons? Why is that journal accepting an article on a completely unrelated issue??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because thanks to Dr. Lewandowsky, D*nialism has now been declared a pathology thus medicalizing dissent. ‘Lewd’ behavior: The pathologising of climate scepticism
This is very dangerous because there is a history of the medical profession placing people they think are delusional, Believing 9/11 was an inside job for example, in psychiatric facilities.

…As the bill [ Colorado bill, SB-13-013] was debated, no one could explain why it was even brought up.

“I was told it was so we can exercise 72-hour mental holds on our own citizens,” Sen. Kevin Lundberg said. “I found it curious…Currently a police officer, doctor, psychiatrist, registered nurse and other professionals just on the strength of their word can say they want a person taken against their will and put in a mental institution for up to three business days.”

http://www.beyondthehaze.com/category/constitution/page/4/

It has certainly been used by the USSR to get rid of the dissidents.
A few selected posts:

Guest post by Thomas Fuller
The medicalization of dissent is a delicate topic to bring up in conversations about climate change. If you use it about somebody you’re almost instantly associating them with really evil people who used the tactic to further Stalinism, Naziism, Maoism, etc.
But the tactic, which really is nothing more than a fancy term for calling your opponents crazy, exists. It is reprehensible…
Medicalizing dissent was perhaps first used by Dr. Samuel Cartwright in 1861, when he invented the term drapetomania to describe a new disease, suffered only by slaves. The disease was a desire for freedom. It had to be a disease, you see, because Cartwright had to justify slavery. As you can see, it’s hard to talk about medicalizing dissent without being offensive.
The latest attempt is Stephan Lewandowsky’s paper, ‘NASA faked the moon landing, Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science’, scheduled to be published in Psychological Science in the near future. The paper describes the findings of an internet survey and finds a correlation between belief in a ‘laissez faire’ conception of free market economies and rejection of climate science….

Paging Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky – show your climate survey invitation RSVP’s
The OTHER problem with the Lewandowsky paper and similar ‘skeptic’ motivation analysis: Core premise off the rails about fossil fuel industry corruption accusation
So much happening in LewWorld, so little time. I’ve decided to simply aggregate all of the posts on Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky into one news item.
The Daily Lew
The Daily Lew – Issue 2
The Daily Lew – Issue 3
The Daily Lew – Issue 4
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/15/the-daily-lew-issue-5/
The Lewandowsky participation census, re-booted

Mary

Thanks for the good news, as truth emerges. The environmental movement appears to be a religion, as Michael Burleigh’s books on history make clear that often political movements have replaced Christianity during the 20th Century. Nazism, Fascism and Communism all are examples. It appears there is something inside most humans that requires a belief in something higher than self. Maybe it’s evidence of a soul?

Chris @NJSnowFan

First person that comes to mind is M. Mann.

Chris Riley

Matthew Souder has two questions:
“Hey I have a question…why is Richard Lindzen…an atmospheric scientist…publishing in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons? Why is that journal accepting an article on a completely unrelated issue??
I have one answer that covers both. Quackery is the enemy of the physician. The acceptance of quackery in one branch of science presents an existential threat to all science, including medicine.

Resourceguy

Wow!

troe

One of the great enablers of the corruption of science through funding Bart Gordon responded to Climategate in 2009 with “we need more research”
Senator Lamar Alexander another fully vested member of the congressional funding team makes a statement in preparation for his reelection campaign “we need more research”
They keep calling for it because they believe they can control the results. Marcott, Shakun et al being an excellent example of the genre.

Keitho

Chris Riley says:
August 29, 2013 at 8:10 am (Edit)
I think that it would not be a bad idea for Anthony to consider sponsoring an annual Lysenko prize competition. it might help “raise awareness” (to use a revolting phrase) of the poor scholarship that is the norm today amongst alarmists.
——————————————————————————————————–
Out here they use the word “conscientise” which is really horrible. Having your conscience pricked is worse than being made aware even if the objective is equally nefarious. The spread of these methods to engrain “Climatology” into, especially, young people’s heads is a crime against humanity.

Jimbo says: “I hope Lindzen is wrong about CAGW taking longer than Lyshenkoism to disappear but I think he’s right.”
Even as long ago as 2008 I was aware that the evidence didn’t show a warming trend. Half a decade later there are still academics denying that the climate is not currently warming.
I’m afraid evidence doesn’t seem to have any sway on these people. E.g. when we take the period since the start of CO2 records (1958), we’ve had 5.5 decades. Of these only 3 have shown warming. That is not exactly fulsome backing even for the known physics of CO2 greenhouse effect (1C per doubling CO2) let alone the completely “pie in the sky” claims about feedbacks.
As for their predictions:-
In the 1970s they predicted global cooling … in the 1980s it warmed. (WRONG)
In the 1980s they predicted warming …. 1990s it warmed (RIGHT)
in the 1990s they predicted warming … 2000s it did not (WRONG)
In the 2000s they predicted warming … 2010s so far it has not (WRONG?)
So, the fact there is no real evidence of an unusual warming trend during the period of rising CO2 is incapable of altering their view that “something dreadful” is happening. Nor does the proven fact they cannot predict the climate shake their belief that they can.
If this were science, it would be fairly easy to set a test for when their theories are busted – that test has already been and gone when the global temperature fell below the 95% confidence interval for their projection. But this is not science, and not subject to scientific rules. Instead it is psychology and like you I would love to know the answer to this question: how much evidence over how long a time will it take to force people like this alarmists to confront their delusion and denial and change their views?

Greg

“A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.”
Quote of the week.

RACookPE1978

A so-called moderate, such as Alexander above, or any of several dozen “quasi-not-really-“conservative” members of the opposition party, can pretend to be “pro-science” (or more accurately) “not against real science” by calling for more spending on research. It becomes a campaign issue: “Look, I called for more research into global warming, so you can’t call me a flat-earth-anti-science-right-wing-religion-nut-denier” ….
Even though their liberal-socialist democrat opponents will anyway.

Ben U.

Another reason, besides those adduced by commenters above, for a physicians’ journal to publish criticism of climate alarmism, is the alarmist talking point that CLIMATOLOGISTS (at least many of them) ARE the PHYSICIANS for the rest of us to call and heed about the climate up to and including supposed urgent remedies that disempower and impoverish people globally. Now we see what a real physicians’ journal offers pertinent to that claim.

Ted Clayton

@philjourdan noted: “I thought it strange that he would publish in a Medical journal, until I realized it was probably the only one that was amicable to him publishing.”
@Matthew Souders asked: “Hey I have a question…why is Richard Lindzen…an atmospheric scientist…publishing in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons?”
It’s possible, as some will assume or imply, that Prof. Lindzen had to ‘shop’ his paper for a place willing to publish it. Did he set out to make a contribution to the medical community?
Certainly, Dr. Lindzen does make a nominal nod to his medical hosts. The opening paragraph poses his thesis in terms of social institutionalization, which can be a matter of public mental health & well-being … and thus can come under the medical purview.

Though valuable as a process, science is always problematic as an institution. Charles Darwin often expressed gratitude for being able to be a gentleman scientist with no need for an institutional affiliation. Unfortunately, as a practical matter, the gentleman scientist no longer exists. Even in the 19th Century, most scientists needed institutional homes, and today science almost inevitably requires outside funding. In some fields, including climate, the government has essentially a monopoly on such funding.

Certainly, when we’re talking about overt pathologies like Lysenkoism … we’re talking real “pathology”, and right up the Doctors’ alley.
Eugenics, which in fact is Richard Lindzen’s original ‘specialty’, is however much less clearly a pathology. It is now taboo, and certain actors on history’s stage abused it badly … but it was basically legitimate science.
Eugenics was/is, though, essentially a medical initiative & activity. It was & is ‘their baby’. We have several mildly eugenic activities currently in practice. Where eugenics ‘went wrong’, how it remains useful, and comparisons with major contemporary science-venues … are going to be relevant to the medical community.
The paper does devote the center section to hard-core climate-science science-arguments, but Prof. Lindzen does return to his treatment of the venue as a pathology, and to more than a fig-leaf extent.

@Ted Clayton – I appreciate the analysis and find a lot of truth in it.

Peter Miller

It is difficult to imagine anything more direct and correct than this description of climate science.

Resourceguy

Leave it to mafia judges and doctors to stand up to thugs. Bravery tends to have a predictable lineage to it.

Bill Parsons

It wonder how receptive Dr. Lindzen’s audience was. The medical profession should be filled with skeptics, and it may have some. But, the ones I know are devout believers. Call me a cynic, but it appears to me that most docs’ pragmatic training makes them real hesitant to pee in their own private feed trough. Why would they? Consider the range of health abnormalities and diseases that remain a source of public funding: .
acne, anxiety, cancer deaths in England, cannibalism, cholera, dengue hemorrhagic fever, depression, frostbite, heart attacks and strokes, kidney stones, malaria, prostitution, suicide, yellow fever (from: “A Not Quite Complete List Of Things Supposedly
Caused By Global Warming”,)
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
Anthony’s and Dr. Lindzen’s presentations notwithstanding, I think the medical profession will be a tough nut to crack.

wayne

“Hey I have a question…why is Richard Lindzen…an atmospheric scientist…publishing in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons? Why is that journal accepting an article on a completely unrelated issue??”
Because there are some 1000x more members intelligent in the sciences than shoddy climatologist journals and they all know this affects us all. High priced energy affects the health of real people and doctors and surgeons see it… that’s the real world. It’s an excellent place to be published.
BTW: Excellent article Dick.

Luther Wu

A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.”
That one sentence describes every major player on the alarmist side.
Is there even one supporting hypothesis of the warmist agenda which hasn’t been shown to be incorrect and more often than not, derived through corrupt practice?

Resourceguy

It reminds me of another doctor still being held in Pakistan.

“ascendancy of incompetents”
I love that!!!! It makes me smile.
Richard Lindzen, you are always a pleasure to listen to and read.

BBould

I’m not sure we needed a paper to tell us AGW is politically motivated. Whenever you have political groups taking sides you should now what you have,

Frans Franken

Physicians might be interested in the predicted high mortality rate as a consequence of global warming. Think of the malaria mosquito allegedly migrating north etc.
It seems the IPCC and associated governments will now emphasize the prophesized terrible consequences of global warming. As former UN climate chief (what is that) Yvo de Boer put it, based on the ‘leaked’ 5th Assessment Report (AR5): it “will scare the wits out of everyone”.
Risk = Probability x Consequence
In the anticipated AR5 the probability of (runaway/unprecedented/etc) global warming is being scaled down while the consequences are simultaneously being blown up. Giving politicians a fine excuse to state that “considering the potentially disastrous consequences we can’t afford the risk not to act” and such.
In this story the amount of warming c.q. climate sensitivity will not much interest politicians, unless it becomes obvious that it will remain below their self-defined danger threshold of 2 C. The water cycle will probably take care of this, as it always appears to have reliably done.

PeterB in Indianapolis

Most people don’t understand statistics; therefore, statistics can be used AGAINST most people. This gives credence to the old quote about lies, damn lies, and statistics.
I found this to be particularly interesting http://nautil.us/issue/4/the-unlikely/sciences-significant-stats-problem

Richard D

It’s not surprising physicians are more rigorous in their science than the junk peddled by “climate scientists”, as their judgment directly affects patient outcomes, eg. life and death. Also, they have been very badly burned pretty in the past by powerful self interest from within their profession. I’m thinking of surgeons’ long/fierce resistance to accepting peptic ulcers are caused by bacteria (H. pylori) and are best treated with cheap antibiotics rather than expensive surgery.

rogerknights

Bloke down the pub says:
August 29, 2013 at 6:54 am
Once people get the idea that it’s ok to say that the emperor has no clothes, then there’s only one way this will end.

An arrest for public indecency?

Chad Wozniak

@Richard D –
Let’s also not forget the Duke University cancer cure scam two years ago – that had to have been a wake-up call for physicians. Like you say, people die quickly if doctors get it wrong, but the deaths from global warming alarmist policies can take years to become evident.

Dennis Hand

The environmental movement, the anti-nuclear movement, the anti-war movement …. have all been of political in nature. While the low level adherents may actually believe what is espoused, the leadership is acting from a political motivation, that of bringing down capitalism.

pat

This is an extremely important article. It is running in some major news papers and may be picked up by more. Basically we are seeing that there are ‘behind the curtain’ discussions among the directors and editors of some prestigious scientific organization as they realize that climate science has been dominated by extraordinarily poor science. Not to say a political agenda designed to siphon money out of gullible politicians that are offered the opportunity to tax without limit. And that it would be best to remove oneself from the ridicule sure to come as study after study, often undertaken by intrigued specialists whose interest was sparked by outrageous predictions, fail to confirm data, much less the hypothesis.

Well worth reading.

John in L du B

Forget the religion metaphor. Lindzen is too easy on the people occupying the appropriately-coloured green box, who are essentially corrupt. Big Green organizations purposely exaggerate, twist and misreport the equivocations of the people in the yellow box to keep the story scary because their multi-billion dollar operations require it to be scary to keep them relevant and keep the cash flowing. The same goes to a lesser extent for their journalistic sycophants who wouldn’t have a news story if it wasn’t scary and overhyped.
As for Matthew Souders’ question, any corruption in one scientific area will quickly spread to corrupt other areas of science. I want my doctor to be concerned about any movement that is corrupting the scientific process since my health depends on the science being correct, accurately reported and fact-based.

“…In consequence, he writes, “A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.” …”

 
Incompetents, whoo boy, climsci sure has a lot of manns, menn and womenn including the loopy shrink, glieckk water specialist and numerous wacked CAGW weaving web religious.
 
Well, of course Dr. Lindzen published in the ‘Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons’! Where else would he find an uncorrupted publication addressing a large customer base of science educated citizenry. It’s quite clear that the AGU, Nat Geo and Nature constituents are among those coopted by the eco-nut money troughs with their dumbed down discussions loudly echoed by the journalistic imitators.