The Climate Change Propaganda War Is Just Getting Started

Climate change … always entertaining. From the Washington Times:

Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” to gut the credibility of skeptics.

In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of “being treated like political pawns” and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.

“Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules,” Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails.

Some scientists question the tactic and say they should focus instead on perfecting their science, but the researchers who are organizing the effort say the political battle is eroding confidence in their work.

“This was an outpouring of angry frustration on the part of normally very staid scientists who said, ‘God, can’t we have a civil dialogue here and discuss the truth without spinning everything,’” said Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford professor and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment who was part of the e-mail discussion but wants the scientists to take a slightly different approach.

The scientists have been under siege since late last year when e-mails leaked from a British climate research institute seemed to show top researchers talking about skewing data to push predetermined outcomes. Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative body on the matter, has suffered defections of members after it had to retract claims that Himalayan glaciers will melt over the next 25 years.

Last month, President Obama announced that he would create a U.S. agency to arbitrate research on climate change.

Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican and a chief skeptic of global-warming claims, is considering asking the Justice Department to investigate whether climate scientists who receive taxpayer-funded grants falsified data. He lists 17 people he said have been key players in the controversy.

That news has enraged scientists…

[continues at the Washington Times]

, , ,

  • Hadrian999

    when you start think about winning you are no longer pursuing science,
    now they will care more about reinforcing and spreading their beliefs than following the data wherever it leads.
    this will give the opposition more ammo to use against them, not less

    • rageplug

      Agreed. This whole issue has been so prostituted it's sickening.

    • Tuna Ghost

      It could be said that they're pursuing the propagation of the truth against those that would silence it, which isn't exactly science but it needs to be done and they're the ones in the position to do it. Even so, I'm sure more than one of us can quote a Friedrich Nietzsche line about fighting monsters, and even though he was dead wrong about a lot of things I think that one may hold some truth.

  • tonyviner

    WE ARE KILLING OUR PLANET!

    • tonyviner

      More precisely, as George Carlin said, “The planet will be fine, the PEOPLE are fucked.”

  • 5by5

    The most obscene part of this is the idea that mankind might follow a dimwitted jagoff like James Inhofe off a fracking cliff. If we actually do that? Follow an Okie off the cliff like a bunch of lemmings? We didn't DESERVE to survive as a species.

    Thankfully people outside this country aren't as idiotic as SOME of the ones in it. Probably why Inhofe was literally laughed out of the country in less than an hour when he did his grandstanding in Copenhagen. And I mean that literally. People actually laughed at the moron openly during his “press conference” because he clearly doesn't know the first fucking thing about science, and therefore is in no position to judge scientists.

    • Hadrian999

      mankind is going to follow some idiot, one is just as good as another.
      even if there were no global warming at all, no damage to ecosystems,
      and we had an infinite oil faucet, conservation, sustainable energy,
      and energy efficient building would still be a god damn great idea,
      if enough people really think consumption for it's own sake is a good idea,
      maybe the species really should go.

    • Kennixcar2

      The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle; yes, some unscrupulous people have taken advantage of the theory, and have used it for fearmongering, etc., but humanity is having effects on the environment, at least in some places, and if a viable solution is not put in place, it will eventually begin to get truly global, and once that happens, we will probably see a century, or maybe even 2, where life on earth will be hell for many.

      The only people that are getting promoted are the outright fearmongerers, and the climate DENIERS……….while those on the middle ground, regardless of where they lean almost never get heard, it seems.

  • http://www.earthfacts.net/ Mandy Earth

    Running an ad in the New York Times may only make them appear biased and insistant on proving that they are right, regardless of any evidence that might support an opposing viewpoint – just the opposite of the effect they are trying to achieve.

  • Kennixcar2

    The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle; yes, some unscrupulous people have taken advantage of the theory, and have used it for fearmongering, etc., but humanity is having effects on the environment, at least in some places, and if a viable solution is not put in place, it will eventually begin to get truly global, and once that happens, we will probably see a century, or maybe even 2, where life on earth will be hell for many.

    The only people that are getting promoted are the outright fearmongerers, and the climate DENIERS……….while those on the middle ground, regardless of where they lean almost never get heard, it seems.