Global Warming Denialists Caught in Lies... Again

[InfiniteNow]

Ah... the sweet, luscious irony of the behavior of those who deny global climate change.

 

Does everyone here remember that fancy pansey little list of "500 scientists who don't believe in global warming?" It was spread across the internet, and IIRC a few times here at Hypography when someone was trying to prop up an otherwise untennable argument.

 

Well, take a peak at this sweet little nugget, across which I stumbled today. In sum, in just 24 hours, they found out that 45 scientists from the list, when contacted, had no idea they'd been included, and quite disagreed with the information attributed to them:

 

 

45 Scientists Dump Global Warming Deniers in 24 Hours : Environmental News Blog | Environmental Graffiti

 

"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.”-- Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

 

"I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.”-- Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

 

"I don’t believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article.”

-- Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

 

 

It would be one thing if there were science to support their contentions. It's quite another when people flat out lie.

 

And you wonder why denialists get treated like creationists. It's because they're totally whacked in the head. ;)

 

Your thoughts?

[Zythryn]

Doesn't surprise me.

It really is a shame, as extremists on both sides do nothing to further serious discussion/research into this very important topic.

[REASON]

This is consistent with the arguments I've been making that there is a concerted effort to distort the science relating to global climate change for the purpose of making people become skeptical of it, if not full blown denialists. Much of this is comming from the right wing.

 

I would not be surprised at all if it were determined that all this disinformation is originating from the lobbying efforts of the big energy corporations that are like to sustain costs if the public were to become properly educated and were to effectively push for changes in our energy policy.

 

I would also not be surprised if the current severe and unaccounted for spikes in fuel prices were attributable to the fact that energy corporations are sensing that the tide is turning, and are capitalizing on as much profit as they can while there is no real oversight, in anticipation of the additional costs they can see looming on the horizon as a result of the call for change.

 

Of course, I can provide no evidence of this, but at least it would make more sense than these BS notions of short supplies and increased demand due to the fact that we've officially entered the dreaded "Driving Season." ;)

[CraigD]

Among objective-minded people, I believe it’s common and accepted knowledge that documents such as Dennis Avery’s “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” and similar documents sponsored by organizations such as the Heartland institute and the Hudson institute are intended to promote political and economic policies, not present accurate scientific information. In short, they are propaganda, and are not constrained by editor-enforced accuracy or peer review requirements, so should not be considered credible.

 

I applaud Kevin Grandia and Richard Littlemore of desmogblog.com for their fact-checking work in calling attention to the many people who’s names were listed among “the 500” without their knowledge, consent, or agreement with its stated position.

 

However, I regret that they failed to describe the method used to select the 122 people from the list, to contacted by email, the text of the email sent, and, presumably, did not phrase the email in a form that would allow a clear “approve/disapprove/no opinion” statistic to be obtained. Although I believe they’ve made the point that Avery’s list is fraudulently inaccurate, by not documenting a sound statistical approach to their work, they have already invited criticism that their selection was “cherry picked” to select scientists already know by them not to support Avery’s position, and accusations of employing tactics similar to Avery’s. I don’t believe this is the case, but their lack of sound statistical writing leaves them unnecessarily open to such accusations.

 

I’m puzzled by this failure. Although Grandia and Littlemore are educated and experienced in psychology and journalism, respectively, not rigorously statistical disciplines, I’m dismayed that people with such obvious dedication to objective truth and accuracy in communication should evidence such a lack of understanding of the importance and practice of simple statistical methods.

[Zythryn]

I agree with you Craig. I would love to see a full blown fact checking of all 500 with positive, negative, no opinion and the number that could not be contacted or would not respond.

[REASON]

Not really surprising actually. Global Warming research does, after all, threaten their hold on the energy business and stock market shares.

 

I'm willing to bet that some of the scientists on that list don't even exist....

 

:)

[HydrogenBond]

I tend to think it is political pressure, more than science talking. The herd is running mostly in one direction, if you don't run that way, there are consequences, but if you do there is research reward. It uses the test proven dog training technique of fear and reward to funnel science. One could see this same affect with the former ozone scare. Those who resisted turned out to be closer to the final revised truth. But the herd wasn't interested in truth. It made more sense to run with the irrational herd rather than be trampled by it, even with the old bottom line, wrong.

 

The question I have is, have we made any lists of scientists who supported the old ozone predictions to see which scientists were unable to see the final reality, at the very beginning? If such scientists are now part of the global warming herd, their vote should only count as a half vote of confidence. There is no checks and balances in political science. Politics will cut them slack in terms of past mistakes, as long as they say what they are suppose to say this time around.

 

What we need is a tar and feather clause. If it turns out, in twenty years, manmade global warming was an inflated myth, then those who support it have a consequence to pay. This will neutralize some of the political peer pressure and get a more honest opinion out of science. Right now there is no consequence for bad science claims. It is based on statistical models. This would force the science casinos to make sure the over-under is right. If they are really correct, there should be no fear of the tar, such that signing a future contract would be a formality. But this will never happen, because politics would be in a bind unable to stir science quite as effectively. Tar and feathers would help. It does no permanent harm but would be good reality TV, since it represents a contract with the reality of the future.

 

From an objective point of view, the global warming phenomena, does have a good side. It will create a lot of new jobs that don't yet exist. This is good for the world economy. The problem I have is, rather than just be up front, it is being done in a surreptitious way. I sort of get the impression the pie is being cut up in advance in smoke filled rooms. The open approach is more open market allowing everyone to get in on the ground floor. But I suppose, new markets can benefits by a social push to overcome the inertia of the old market structure. Maybe one can't create this new market, with just an alluring approach, such as that used to sell cars or tech equipment. Maybe it does need the fear.

 

For example, going green may not be as affective using an approach like the ladies will flock to your house in bikini's, making you popular. Fear may be better for many people, since they can now pretend to be a soldier fighting off Armageddon. in my opinion, they need to use both approaches since vanity also seems to sell green. We get to show off the hybrid and use it to question why poor people aren't doing their part, driving a clunker that makes smoke. I even suppose Gore deserves his share of the new pie, having worked so hard to create free market awareness. He has his machine in place, just waiting for the pumped to primed. There is nothing wrong with that, since he is investing the most time up front, and time is money. If we project the jobs and wealth create it will be green.

[CraigD]

I'm willing to bet that some of the scientists on that list don't even exist.

According to this 4/30/08 desmogblog article, there appears to be at least one such instance on this:

"Jull, B. L. K., Physical Research Lab., Ahmedabad, India" is also unlikely to complain as he appears not to exist. There is a Tim Jull from the University of Arizona (who probably doesn't want to be on the list) and a BLK Somajahulu, now retired from the Physical Research Lab in Ahmedabad who likely ALSO doesn't want to be on this list.

 

We can't say whether Avery is sloppy in his transcription or that he just throws in the odd imaginary character to flesh out his "argument." But if there is a third potential explanation, we'll be happy to hear about it.

More overarchingly, the Heartland Institute responded to desmogblog’s criticism with this 5/5/08 article, which begins:

DeSmogBlog, a Web site created to attack conservative and free-market nonprofit organizations, targeted The Heartland Institute in late April 2008, and in particular two lists posted on Heartland’s Web site [

Research by Hundreds of Scientists Undermines Global Warming Alarmism - by Tom Swiss - The Heartland Institute

] of scientists whose published work contradicts some of the main tenets of global warming alarmism. The blog persuaded some of the scientists appearing in the lists to ask that their names be removed from the lists.

 

In response to the complaints, The Heartland Institute has changed the headlines that its PR department had chosen for some of the documents related to the lists, from “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” to “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.”

Aside from those headlines, none of the articles and news releases produced by The Heartland Institute or the Hudson Institute (the original source of the lists) claims that all of the scientists who appear in the lists currently doubt that the modern warming is man-made.

This 5/5/08 desmogblog article describes the Heartland article as

The Heartland Institute has withdrawn its claim of having identified "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts about Global Warming Scares," but is refusing the demands by dozens of those scientists to be removed from the Heartland's original offending document

Later in the Heartland Institute article, its author Joseph Bast asserts that the scientists who have contacted his organization requesting their names be removed from the list have no legal or ethical right to do so, and in doing so, have “crossed the line between scientific research and policy advocacy”.

 

IMHO, organization such as the Heartland Institute are propaganda agencies, pure and simple. The “backing off” that desmogblog ascribes to them is, as I read it, nothing of the kind, but rather the taking of an opportunity to attack the article and the institute’s critics. Propoganda appears an ugly and deceitful business.

[CraigD]

One could see this same affect with the former ozone scare. Those who resisted turned out to be closer to the final revised truth.

As required by hypography’s site rules, please back up this claim with links or references.

 

According to articles such as wikipedia’s “ozone depletion” and its many links and references, there is wide consensus that the slow, ongoing return to pre-1970 levels of atmospheric ozone concentration matches predictions, is due to the nearly worldwide replacement of ozone-depleting refrigerants and propellants with non or less ozone-depleting alternatives, and that this replacement did not result in a threat to public safety or excessive economic hardship.

[InfiniteNow]

According to this 4/30/08 desmogblog article, there appears to be at least one such instance on this:

"Jull, B. L. K., Physical Research Lab., Ahmedabad, India" is also unlikely to complain as he appears not to exist. There is a Tim Jull from the University of Arizona (who probably doesn't want to be on the list) and a BLK Somajahulu, now retired from the Physical Research Lab in Ahmedabad who likely ALSO doesn't want to be on this list.

 

We can't say whether Avery is sloppy in his transcription or that he just throws in the odd imaginary character to flesh out his "argument." But if there is a third potential explanation, we'll be happy to hear about it.

More overarchingly, the Heartland Institute responded to desmogblog’s criticism with this 5/5/08 article, which begins:

DeSmogBlog, a Web site created to attack conservative and free-market nonprofit organizations, targeted The Heartland Institute in late April 2008, and in particular two lists posted on Heartland’s Web site [

Research by Hundreds of Scientists Undermines Global Warming Alarmism - by Tom Swiss - The Heartland Institute

] of scientists whose published work contradicts some of the main tenets of global warming alarmism. The blog persuaded some of the scientists appearing in the lists to ask that their names be removed from the lists.

 

In response to the complaints, The Heartland Institute has changed the headlines that its PR department had chosen for some of the documents related to the lists, from “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” to “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.”

Aside from those headlines, none of the articles and news releases produced by The Heartland Institute or the Hudson Institute (the original source of the lists) claims that all of the scientists who appear in the lists currently doubt that the modern warming is man-made.

This 5/5/08 desmogblog article describes the Heartland article as

The Heartland Institute has withdrawn its claim of having identified "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts about Global Warming Scares," but is refusing the demands by dozens of those scientists to be removed from the Heartland's original offending document

Later in the Heartland Institute article, its author Joseph Bast asserts that the scientists who have contacted his organization requesting their names be removed from the list have no legal or ethical right to do so, and in doing so, have “crossed the line between scientific research and policy advocacy”.

 

IMHO, organization such as the Heartland Institute are propaganda agencies, pure and simple. The “backing off” that desmogblog ascribes to them is, as I read it, nothing of the kind, but rather the taking of an opportunity to attack the article and the institute’s critics. Propoganda appears an ugly and deceitful business.

 

Thank you, Craig. I'm going to pass this along to the person who called my attention to it originally.

[freeztar]

Yes, very good post Craig.

 

It's all much more clear now. THI believes in a 1500 year natural climate cycle. Apparently, the authors of "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years" have basically just copied their bibliography and called it the list. :)

 

I suspect that the data that they gathered from scientific studies in support of their book was cherry-picked. I have not reviewed the book so I don't know if this is true, but if it is, it is really disengenious. I would be outraged if my research was cherry-picked to support an idea that had no bearing on my work and beliefs.

 

THI's stance on this issue further confounds me with comments such as this:

 

What motivates the scientists? They have no right -- legally or ethically -- to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography composed by researchers with whom they disagree. Their names probably appear in hundreds or thousands of bibliographies accompanying other articles or in books with which they disagree. Do they plan to sue hundreds or thousands of their colleagues? The proper response is to engage in scholarly debate, not demand imperiously that the other side redact its publications.

 

From Singer, one of the authors and also professor emeritus of environmental studies at the University of Virginia:

 

"We've known for 400 years about the strong correlation between sunspots and the Earth's temperatures," said Singer. "There is no correlation between our temperatures and CO2."

Hmmmm....:confused:

I'm glad I didn't go to U of V. :lol:

[CraigD]

From Singer, one of the authors and also professor emeritus of environmental studies at the University of Virginia:

"We've known for 400 years about the strong correlation between sunspots and the Earth's temperatures," said Singer. "There is no correlation between our temperatures and CO2."

Hmmmm....

While I think Fred Singer is technically wrong in the high-level conclusions he’s reached that human influences do not have a significant impact on climate, and ethically wrong in advocacy of this conclusion via such organizations as SEPP, I must acknowledge that Singer is IMHO an accomplished engineer and scientist and engineer. Though I believe he has consistently allowed his personal preconceptions to mislead his scientific intuition, not only in his old age (Singer is currently 83), but throughout his career, he is far from the first or only accomplished scientist against who such an accusation can be made.

I'm glad I didn't go to U of V. :D

IMHO, UVA is an excellent university in nearly every regard. It’s definitely not an conservative propaganda mill, or training ground!

 

I wouldn’t want anyone considering academic decisions to conclude otherwise because of Singer’s former tenure there, or any implied association between it and political advocacy (AKA propaganda) organizations such as The Heartland Institute.