Hundreds of climate scientists are joining a campaign to push back against critics, including politicians skeptical of climate change who have investigated or threatened to investigate researchers, the Chicago Tribune reported. The campaign, which the American Geophysical Union is expected to announce on Monday, represents a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have avoided the news media but now say they are willing to speak out against what they see as misinformation. “This group feels strongly that science and politics can’t be divorced,” said Scott A. Mandia, a professor of physical sciences at the State University of New York’s Suffolk County Community College, “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.”
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
7 Responses to Climate Scientists Team Up to Counter Attacks by Global-Warming Skeptics
gmclean - November 8, 2010 at 8:20 am
The article linked above in the Chicago Tribune states:
“People who ask for and accept taxpayer dollars shouldn’t get bent out 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.”
This statement should be turned to address the Congress people, state and federal, who accept tax payer subsidies but shirk their responsibility to legislate for the common good utilizing the best information available. How about: “The (US) budget is spiraling out of control while government is handing out billions of dollars in salary grants to politicians, many of whom are unabashed liars.”
lexalexander - November 9, 2010 at 8:23 am
Holding public officials accountable is laudable. Of course, I’m biased because I spent 25 years doing it. However, what’s going on in the area of climate research has been roughly one part accountability journalism to 10 parts corporate-funded anti-science propaganda.
I’m delighted that the leaders in climate-change science seem to understand the need to push back. I just hope they will do it well. That means doing a lot of things scientists often don’t spend a lot of time doing: Communicating their findings to a general audience in plain English. Studying the arguments and tactics of their critics and finding the best ways to debunk them when they are, in fact, debunkable (and, of course, acknowledging them when they are correct). Making sure that general audience understands not only the flaws in critics’ arguments but their motivations and funding sources.
A word of warning to these folks: Do NOT expect the mainstream media to be especially helpful. For a lot of reasons, not all of which are applicable to any particular outlet and some of which have no particular moral component, you need to be prepared for the mainstream media to be unable, unwilling or both to help.
cb_10 - November 9, 2010 at 11:24 am
Here’s a thought: Scientists who promote the theory that climate change is partially or primarily anthropogenic try not referring to their opponents, especially the more principled ones as “deniers” or “denialists.” No one “denies” there is climate change. The differences of opinion exist in the specifics, causes, and significance of existing climate change. Some of the “denialists” are also scientists, with reasonable doubts and honest criticisms. Will attacks against them also be condemned?
Professor Mandia says that his group feels that “science and politics can’t be divorced.” The main problem with climate change science though is that it has been far too politicized. This has certainly happened on both sides, but alarmism has come primarily from one side. The quote from Professor Mandia is charged with politics; science, not so much.
If this group replaces climate alarmism with dialogue, constructive engagement, transparency, and an openness to the critiques of their colleagues and the public, then the initiative is more than welcome. If the group sees themselves as the means to straighten out the opposition, then the only result will be a small increase in the volume of the noise on the subject, and a further decline in public confidence in the objectivity and reliability of the scientific community on this issue.
Let’s hope the former is the actual result.
As for funding sources and motivations, let’s make sure that applies to both sides. There are clearly politics and moneyed interests at play in both camps.
etjatm - November 9, 2010 at 11:49 am
Like cb_10 I too picked up on the selection of “…denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists.” in describing those who question the science of climate change. The terminology carries a certain amount of negativity while ingoring the fact that many denialist’s are just as credentialed as those supporting climate change theory…and it is, in my opinion, theory.
I don’t have much hope for constructive discussion.
dziuk - November 9, 2010 at 1:28 pm
I live in Illinois in a house with about 50 feet of soil beneath me as result of a glacier well before man had any influence below that there is 24 feet of limestone put there by a few millions of tropical organisms and then about 8 feet of coal from tropica organismsthat grew well before any humans contributed to it. The soil is from a glacier formed well before any humans influenced climate. To blame climate change to anthrogenic factors is arrogance when one considers the long term.Philip Dziuk
pnaegele - November 9, 2010 at 3:34 pm
This is completely false. The AGU stated as much on their site:
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2010/2010-37.shtml
“In contrast to what has been reported in the LA Times and elsewhere, there is no campaign by AGU against climate skeptics or congressional conservatives,” says Christine McEntee, Executive Director and CEO of the American Geophysical Union. “AGU will continue to provide accurate scientific information on Earth and space topics to inform the general public and to support sound public policy development.”
laoshi - November 19, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Consensus vs. Non-consenting, the final battle. This ought to be fun.