Climate scientists plan campaign against global-warming skeptics




Published: Sunday, Nov. 7, 2010 - 12:00 am


Faced with increasing political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists
are joining a broad campaign to push back against congressional
conservatives who have threatened prominent researchers with
investigations and have vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their
critics, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control
of the House in last Tuesday's election.

On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.


Some are prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk-radio and television shows.

John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to climate-change skeptics, is organizing a "Climate Rapid Response Team," which so far
has more than three dozen leading scientists to defend the consensus on
global warming in the scientific community. Some are also preparing a
handbook on the human causes of climate change, which they plan to start sending to U.S. high schools as soon as this fall.

"This group feels strongly that science and politics can't be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate
science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians
who attack climate science and its scientists," said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York.

"We are taking the fight to them because we are . . . tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The
truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has
changed."

During the recent election campaigns, skepticism about climate change became a rallying cry for many Republican candidates. Of the more than 100 new Republican members of Congress, 50 percent are climate-change skeptics, according to an analysis of campaign statements by the Center for American Progress, a liberal research group.

Prominent Republican congressmen such as Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Joe L. Barton, R-Texas, and F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., have pledged to investigate the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. They say they also intend to probe the so-called Climategate scandal, in which thousands of e-mails
of leading climate scientists were hacked and released to the public late last year.

Climate-change skeptics argued that the sniping in some e-mails showed that scientists suppressed research by skeptics and manipulated
data. Five independent panels subsequently cleared the researchers
involved and validated the science.

"People who ask and accept taxpayer dollars shouldn't get bent of shape when asked to account for the money," said James M. Taylor, a senior fellow and a specialist in global warming at the conservative Heartland Institute in Chicago. "The budget is spiraling out of control while government is handing out billions of dollars in grants to climate scientists, many of whom are unabashed activists."

Ongoing public interest in Climategate has prompted climate scientists to act.

The American Geological Union plan has attracted a large number of scientists in a short time because they were eager to address what they
see as climate misinformation, said Jeffrey Taylor, research fellow at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado and manager of the project.

Still, the scope of the group's work is limited, reflecting the ongoing reluctance by many scientists to venture into politics.

In the week that Abraham and others have been organizing the rapid-response team, 39 scientists agreed to participate, including Richard Feely, senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.

"People who've already dug their heels in, we're not going to change their opinions," Mandia said. "We're trying to reach people who
may not have an opinion or opinion based on limited information."



Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/07/3166765/climate-scientists-plan-ca...

Views: 451

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Erm, shouldn't the science do the talking, rather than simply seeing who can get the most publicity? It doesn't help when people say 'the debate is over' etc. Would you be as happy if that was uttered for any other part of science? There shouldn't have to be a campaign. Since when did skepticism in science be seen as a bad thing, OR as something that should be discouraged?
Science has been doing the talking, but it is being drowned out by a twenty year disinformation campaign to protect corporate profits. There is plenty of skepticism in the scientific community about this. But we need to call bullshit when it is appropriate, such as in this politically motivated "debate". Just like a flat-earther's opinion should not carry as much weight as a physicist's, or a creationist's compared to an evolutionary biologist's, these so-called "skeptics" need to be laughed off the stage. Unfortunately, their corporate bankroll and disinformation campaign is formidable.

This movement is just scientists standing up for themselves and pointing out that the non-scientist, right-wing radical corporate backed hacks are a bunch of liars.
Which skeptics? There are nutjobs in every profession, but the danger is labeling them all as 'deniers' or 'flat earthers'. The problem is exactly that. Politically motivated. There is a lot of money tied up in these things now, and the introduction of the carbon trading market means that there is a lot to be lost should the science go a certain way.

What YOU need to decide is who are the nutters, and who is not. Until then, campaigns against skepticism should be treated as absurdly as the notion suggests. As I said, skepticism is in no way a bad thing. By all means call idiots out for lies, but what they are essentially doing, (as is your headline), is putting all skeptics in the same bucket. This is patently not only bad science, but dishonest.
I think the disinformation about evolution is perfectly analogous to this "debate" about global warming. The same thing also happened with tobacco about 40 years ago.
What utter nonsense. Are you seriously going to compare creationism, with AGW skepticism?
Absolutely!
Are you suggesting that the skeptical side of the argument have zero evidence?
By all means...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

http://junkscience.com/july08/cep-eng.pdf

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-suppo...

http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf

This is before we even determine whether man and his CO2 emission are the cause. The fact remains that CO2 and temperature have remained unrelated to a degree throughout the earth history, as shown by



Wher eis the correlation?

Warming could only have occurred, as stated by the IPCC for the last 20 years, so how do YOU explain the previous warming, at the same rate, since 1820?
Thanks for the list, AndyMeanie, and for confirming that you either haven't read or critically analysed the links you cite. When your list includes an article by a TV weatherman for the Heartland Institute, rebuttals of climate science by computer engineers and theoretical physicists, an article in an energy industry trade journal and, again, a reference to the Lindzen and Choi paper which you clearly don't understand at all, I have to wonder if you understand the process of evaluating source materials. This is the problem with many self-styled sceptics; they have absolutely no ability to differentiate between sources, and give equal weight to all, regardless of author, publisher or content.
So your assertion is that the skeptics are funded by big oil? I presume I could counter that the believers are funded by green industry, and carbon trading initiatives? How much money IS involved in carbon industry now?
Follow the money!
You are right... Lets's look at the chap who is in charge of the IPCC, and Al Gore, who is making a pretty penny. By the way, saying something is not the same as proving it.

RSS

Blog Posts

What do you do with the anger?

Posted by dataguy on September 20, 2014 at 5:12pm 5 Comments

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 6 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service