We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.
Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.”
Read the whole letter… it’s only one page. Now get ready… start arguing.
Found by Misanthropic Scott on Cage Match.
“We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular….” – yet there is very little in “Press” and Science about fundamental abuses of the scientific publishing process in those recent times. Have you even heard that one of Nature editors have been fired because of years of intentionally skewing articles allowed to be published in Nature to one particular research group and its interests? (Not GW related but crucial for the reason why there is upheaval against “scientists” – intentional manipulation of scientific data. GW scientists” just turned to be the most affected group).
“(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere.” – Doubtful. Plenty of published scientific evidence against it, though not mentioned by Science… Why?
“(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.” – exact opposite proven without a doubt (data, not interpretations of it) in last 6 years. CO2 concentration kept rising while average temperatures went down. Oh, solar activity that was going up during the warming (as well as CO2) took a dive since 2004. 2nd grade scientific problem: average temperatures follow behavior of the Solar activity, not CO2 concentration. Long term trend also confirmed by scientist of Nobel rank, over hundred thousand years. Also on the same scale proven that CO2 concentration rises AFTER warming, lagging for about 700-1000 years. Consequence, not the cause.
Scientific facts missed by the Science. Reason why there are attacks on the scientist recently: exactly this type of politically driven lies, not proper science. Shame on Science Magazine for this political article. Politics should not be represented in Science in any way shape or form.
I agree. However, there are consequences to actions taken to mitigate possible scenarios that may or may not be a more dangerous risk to our planet (and the people that live on it).
Continue research on sustainable energy and stop cutting down the rain forests.
And we better get to work on the asteroid ‘realligner’ and mass-escape pods too.
i>”We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular.”
In reading that opening statement, I would expect a lot of examples of “political assaults”. Where are they? The letter is impotent without them. You would think that by now they would understand the reasons behind public skepticism… one being the quality and availability of supporting data.
and… “Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers…”
Climate change deniers? Climate has changed continually since the beginning of time. If there is a denier of that fact I would like to visit their preschool class and correct them. Scientists who don’t even understand the argument, whining about rebuttals. Priceless.
This is a letter signed by 259 people, none of which have identified themselves other than by name, who STILL don’t get it.
#3 Skeptic of the AOBCCS
There is a PDF at the bottom of the story that shows their names and the institutes they belong to.
I don’t know if man made global warming is real or not. But, the activities surrounding the issue cause me to give caution.
Regardless of the accuracy of the science, the issue has been hijacked and being used to perpetuate an agenda that has little-to-nothing to do with the environment.
I think rain is just Jesus crying and the climate change is due to our support of gays in our society. (joke)
Well, that SHOULD be an obvious joke, but I have to sadly state it since about 25% of our population believes in magic and superstition and well tell you so in emails on their iPhones, sent via compressed digital signal from ground stations, off geosynchronous orbiting satellites and around fiber optic backbones…to tell you science is always wrong and magic is the answer. Fine. I’m all for it. The day a Christian college can “pray” a satellite into space and get it to orbit a moon of Saturn I’ll admit magic is as useful and “real” as science…until then, shut up and let the grown ups deal with this.
@BigBoyBC
I don’t know personally either, neither does Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly. Golly, maybe we should ask the scientists, the guys who spend YEARS researching this stuff in agonizingly boring detail…or we could just “guess” and use our opinions and what so ratings hungry blow hard on radio says…either way. Asking a scientist is PROBABLY a better idea, but whatever.
In reading that opening statement, I would expect a lot of examples of “political assaults”.
If you wrote this letter, I would expect that too…
#5: “I don’t know if man made global warming is real or not. But, the activities surrounding the issue cause me to give caution.
Regardless of the accuracy of the science, the issue has been hijacked and being used to perpetuate an agenda that has little-to-nothing to do with the environment.”
Yes but most of the hijackers are supported by companies whose interest is in doing little or nothing about global warming, because a change in the status quo would reduce profits.
Re: #8, thanks…. I’ll take that as a compliment. 🙂
One might wish to ask these signatories why they think signing an “open letter” to a science magazine would get their point across to the “deniers” they are supposedly aghast at.
Do they not understand that most day to day folks and politicians don’t read that magazine/organization?
In any case, they don’t deal with the underlying cause of the anger — bad science and statistical analysis. Theories have solid, undeniable facts and data behind them, and are generally only disproved if a) the data is incorrect b) the interpretation is proven wrong by further experiment and data c) the data and interpretation are massaged to produce the results desired.
Based on looking at the data that has been presented, by many sources, there is no denying that we are in a changing climate; that it seems to be increasing in average temperature FROM THE STATIONS WE HAVE DATA POINTS FOR; that CO2 has increased over the past several hundred years.
However, conveniently ignored are the facts that climate has ALWAYS changed and we have to expect it to do so; we do NOT have 100% coverage for data about temperature, co2 concentrations, and other data points that are required to correctly determine past and future trends; that CO2 concentrations have increased and decreased for billions of years, usually after long cooling/heating periods and not as a precursor to climate changes.
They don’t seem to understand that the anger isn’t for the science itself — it is for making far reaching (and expensive) conclusions based on potentially flawed analysis and data. And for belittling those who disagree or who demand more detailed information (like links from any “massaged” graphs or charts to the EXACT, UNDOCTORED data so we can make our own conclusions for ALL papers and articles).
And this is from someone who has a high regard for science and scientists.
#1 dusanmal,
Um … links to back up any of what you say would make it almost seem credible.
Re: Misanthropic Scott, alright then.
There’s to be no posting of opinions on this letter unless you are a scientist and have published sufficient papers. Please refer to Misanthropic Scott to see if you qualify.
To the scientists who wrote the letter: Please excuse my criticism of your lack of proof regarding “the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists”. Silly me, I should have known you have to be a scientist to recognize baseless accusations.
I supported man made global warming until I found people with motives that reeked of self interest promoting schemes that would cost trillions and make them staggeringly rich while having no significant impact on the problem they were supposed to be addressing.
Then I looked at the data and found that the books were being cooked.
This was the Piltdown fraud on a vastly larger scale.
There is no greater sin in science than telling a lie/faking the evidence.
Skeptic–you don’t sound “skeptical” to me==more convinced opponent? Who here really needs any “evidence” of the growing Climate Change Deniers? Anyone?? Could they have made a two page letter to address the denier deniers? But why do that in a publication that nobody reads===except the scientific community to whom it is addressed??
#16–Do-ill==we all reek all the time. Its a sensitivity thing. Your critique is entirely political/social==not scientific and that is why the tobacco industry today still says the link to cancer has still not been proven.
Scott–thanks for the excellent link and your participation here.
When you don’t like Algore feathering his nest by his self promotion and refusal to debate, the answer is not to attack the science like a bunch of Luddites and Big Oil Shills, but rather to attack the programs suggested as a response===by making better suggestions.
That Swedish Scientist (Bjorn Longborg something or other) is quite interesting in his observations of the various different “costs” of effective response to AGW. As always, our government is headlong into solutions more damaging than the problem. I think he is very much against cap and trade and what not but would have to find and research that. He’s into cheap decentralized responses that actually have an effect.
Read the other day about a few scientists who think we are past the tipping point already given the IPCC’s reports are too conservative and missed a great many feedback loops that are magnifying the AGW effect.
Sadly, the more complex a subject is, the more stupidity is allowed to cross dress as reasonable skepticism. Industry thuggery and political pandering still stands out though, thats a good thing.
Eyes wide open, going downstream.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
Hey, I was pretty close. “The Skeptical Environmentalist.”
Now to find one of his low cost solutions.
How interesting the letter begs us not to attack the poor struggling scientists (who have been proven to lie to us) and then illustrate the article with the thoroughly discredited image of the polar bears stranded on an ice floe. Tch Tch Tch
#15 – Skeptic of the AOBCCS,
There’s to be no posting of opinions on this letter unless you are a scientist and have published sufficient papers. Please refer to Misanthropic Scott to see if you qualify.
Not exactly what I said by a long shot. I merely pointed out that a name and affiliation was not enough for you, even with the whole internet available, and yet, you blog anonymously, as do I. The difference is, you think you can post ridiculous statements without even a link to back up your opinion.
#16 deowll,
I supported man made global warming until I found people with motives that reeked of self interest promoting schemes that would cost trillions and make them staggeringly rich while having no significant impact on the problem they were supposed to be addressing.
Please point out one or two of these fabulously rich scientists. I would love to think that one could get rich by doing something as fundamentally useful as scientific research instead of having so many good physicists and other scientists changing careers to become quants, where they can actually make money by providing nothing at all of value to society.
http://tinyurl.com/2wlemn
Then I looked at the data and found that the books were being cooked.
You wouldn’t have a link to some of this good hard evidence would you? Perhaps something a little more concrete than a single ambiguous quote taken out of context by an admitted computer thief with an agenda would be nice.
This was the Piltdown fraud on a vastly larger scale.
Piltdown man, as you clearly are not aware, was perpetrated by a single individual.
http://tinyurl.com/5q2o6d
You are suggesting that thousands of scientists, people accustomed to making a name for themselves by proving others wrong, are all in collusion to avoid making names for themselves by supporting the views of the thousands who came before them.
Is that correct?
bobbo,
Many of the climate scientists of the world are against cap and trade in favor of a nice simple revenue neutral carbon tax at the source. James Hansen is strongly in this list. Cap and trade is a much more complicated system than could really be effective as well as a way to make the profits go to Wall St.
A simple revenue neutral carbon tax would put the money back into the hands of the people who can afford an increase in prices the least. The tax should be charged at the source (oil well, coal mine, etc.) or the port of entry and should be given as a tax rebate to people earning below some amount with greater refunds at lower income levels.
Read the following link if you care about real solutions instead of ExxonMobil/Inhoffe propaganda.
http://tinyurl.com/5wulux
Or, go back to drinking corporate kool-aid and mistaking Al Gore for a scientist if you refuse to actually look at the evidence and then consider real solutions that just might allow us to survive the next century.
#19 – Maricopa,
How interesting the letter begs us not to attack the poor struggling scientists (who have been proven to lie to us)
Link please? What proof?
and then illustrate the article with the thoroughly discredited image of the polar bears stranded on an ice floe. Tch Tch Tch
We haven’t all paid attention to the propaganda. What photo? Was some photo used as actual scientific proof of global warming? Or, are you criticizing some non-scientific group or publication for the way they publicize the issue? What is the actual complaint on this?
I don’t care. I’ll be dead in thirty years….However, the politicians will make the last years of my life miserable due to their misguided efforts to “correct” the earth.
Excuse me, but has anyone noticed the Gulf of Mexico’s little oil spill problem, lately? I’m sure their was tons of science done to prove that very likely couldn’t happen. So safer, more expensive technology for preventing this problem, were circumvented. Now the cost of stopping it, and cleaning it all up, will far exceed what was saved, taking the cheaper way. And don’t expect BP to pick up the full cost. It couldn’t and no doubt won’t. And will be bailed out, just as other too big to fail entities have been. And expect BP to still make a huge profit this year, and hand out big bonuses to its executives. All this “science”. The science of forecasting dangers, calculating risk, manipulating profits, etc. Are a science that’s been corrupted to service the fewest, to make them the wealthiest. And science in other fields can just as easily be biased and corrupted to serve some agenda, that’s got little to do with factual evidence. It’s all subjective research, no matter how objective is the claim.
Science once held that Blacks were mentally inferior to Whites. There was no solid evidence to support this. Just some racist SOB, who skewed his “research” to prove his prejudice. And every other scientist took it for granted. Not bothering to question it, or confirm it, for some time. Probably because it made them feel good, that they were superior. And because they just didn’t give a damn to buck the conscience. Only many years later did anyone take a second look, and discover the obvious flaws in the data.
Thus many climate scientists may also be following flawed research, that they’re unwilling to contest or disprove. How can this research be held as totally flawless, from day one? And never questioned in the slightest, by a so-called majority? And still they claim the science is “self correcting”. I see little evidence of any “self correcting” taking place.
And lastly. It’s not just the assumption that “climate change” is taking place. And that humans are responsible, rather than it being a natural cycle. But also nothing in the way of a workable solution has been proven, in advance of wasting time and money on it. We’re just to trust doing an matter of things, will halt climate change. Sounds more like a fortune-teller’s con. It’s the “curse removal” swindle, only on a global scale.
So far, all the climate scientists complain about, is how hardly anyone beliefs them. Thus avoiding providing any effective solutions, that are proven will work. We’re just to throw money at them, until something appears to work.
Frigging wimpy, whiny, little geeks. What did they expect! Playing on the gullibility of John Q. Public, to sell a political posture, or a new treatment for hair loss. Screw ’em, you go public with your opinions, you pay the price. Science sells, and we’ve about had it with half baked theories and conclusions. Unfortunately, a scientist needs money, so his conclusions always serve the purpose of those that finance, and John Q., he’s getting tired of being treated like he’s stupid.
Denialism, keep using it!
I absolutely love this quote! Smart people use this all the time and it just go nuts LMAO.
“But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.””
When you start to realize the other person is treating assumptions, theories and recent “findings” to be 100% factual, it’s time to just stfu and leave them be.
As I always say, leave the stupid alone as Einstein would! You’ll never get anything accomplish if you continue to surround yourself with them. All they can do is block your way, you just have to move around 😀
>How interesting the letter begs us not to attack the poor struggling scientists (who have been proven to lie to us)
You can start with Michael Mann’s lies to the NAS Panel. He told them that he didn’t calculate an r2 statistic, said “That would be silly and incorrect reasoning,” even though his own graphs showed that he had calculated the statistic.
Just looking at Mann you can find many more, including ‘hide the decline,’ but you have said in the past you are not interested in his math calculations.
TheOne–do you consider gravity being the force of attraction between/among objects as a “fact” we can all rely on or do you have any other theories to present such as angels pushing?
There is one, and only one, correct answer to this question that will remain but a quibble.
Bobbo, Lomborg isn’t comparing solutions to global warming, but rather the costs and benefits of solutions to global warming versus other environmental problems, and concludes the money is better spent on other things. Developing countries said roughly the same thing in the last decade, asking for money for drinking water systems.
Total emissions for US + Japan + Russia + EU + Canada + S Korea is 47.7% of world emissions in 2006. This number is shrinking each year, as the developing world develops. So a carbon tax that is not adopted by those developing countries has little effect.
#28 – MikeN,
I’m not really sure who you’re addressing in this post, possibly me. Would you please provide links. I don’t ask you to google to make my point. Show me the same courtesy please.