Daniel Greenberg meets the Climate Scientists

[Keepitsimple]

Is it really any wonder that the public is losing interest in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming:

Daniel Greenberg, the widely respected journalist and author who focuses on science policy and politics, was invited by Nature to review my book, The Climate Fix. Little did he know that review would bring him up close and personal with the activist wing of the climate science community. After writing a positive review of my book, Greenberg found himself under attack by Michael Mann, Paul Ehrlich and Stefan Rahmstorf on the pages on Nature.

What followed was an email exchange that provides some insight into the mindset of the activist wing of the climate science community. Greenberg shared this exchange with me with the following message, published here with his permission:

Roger, Re my stirring experience of jousting with Mann, Ehrlich, and Rahmstorf: What a scurrilous bunch. My sympathy to you and anyone else who has to deal with them. They're gravediggers of science. Nature will soon publish my riposte and, I think, a disclaimer of any ties to me by the Marshall Institute. Below, my further exchanges with the low-life trio. Best regards, Dan

Here is Greenberg's email to Michael Mann that concludes the exchange, reproduced with his permisison:

Dear Professors Mann, Ehrlich, and Rahmstorf,

Your correspondence concerning my review of Roger Pielke's book "Climate Fix" has provided me with a deeper understanding of the widespread public skepticism toward climate science. In your hands, apple pie and motherhood would come under public suspicion. Have you considered taking a remedial reading course? Can you comprehend the difference between a book reviewer's own beliefs and the reviewer's presentation of the beliefs expressed by the author of the book under review? Apparently not. Furthermore, your insinuation of an undisclosed relationship between me and a conservative think tank is preposterous. In 2006, I participated in a panel discussion sponsored by the Marshall Institute---as I have done with numerous other organizations, including the Brookings Institution, RAND, AAAS, and various academic societies and universities. Common practice for journalists. Nor did I, as you allege, write a report, or anything, for the Marshall Institute. The panel's words were transcribed and published by the Institute. I wrote nothing for them. You guys are the devil's gift to the Tea Party and other climate-change wackos.

Sincerely, Dan Greenberg

If Michael Mann thinks that he has been treated unfairly by my decision not to publish his side of the exchange, I will be happy to post up his emails with his permission. Somehow I doubt that he will be as forthcoming as Greenberg. The repeated character assassination and behind-the-scenes attacks of a small segment of the climate science community gives the entire field a black eye, and it continues unabated. Greenberg is right, these guys could make apple pie and motherhood come under public suspicion.

Link: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/10/daniel-greenberg-meets-climate.html

[TimG]

The repeated character assassination and behind-the-scenes attacks of a small segment of the climate science community gives the entire field a black eye, and it continues unabated.

These guys only get away with what they do because they are supported by many in the climate science community. It is not possible to argue that the peer reviewed literature is a unbiased assessment of our knowledge as long as these kinds of intimidation tactics are considered acceptable.

On a slightly related topic:

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/251325/green-socialism-and-epa-greg-pollowitz

Government: While it destroys jobs with its regulations, the EPA has an opening for an “environmental protection specialist” whose job it is to help the agency meet its “environmental justice goals.” Meet its what?

The fact that the EPA could even consider including "environmental justice" goals in its mandate illustrates how climate is being used to as a back door to impose government policies that are not acceptable to the public.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not sure what a nasty email to Mann is supposed to show.

Is it nasty ? Yes, sure. The science, though, stands.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I'm not sure what a nasty email to Mann is supposed to show.

Is it nasty ? Yes, sure. The science, though, stands.

It's all part of the global climate conspiracy.

[waldo]

These guys only get away with what they do because they are supported by many in the climate science community. It is not possible to argue that the peer reviewed literature is a unbiased assessment of our knowledge as long as these kinds of intimidation tactics are considered acceptable.

character assassination? You mean like what Greenberg wrote about the recently deceased Schneider... which had a significant bearing on the response forthcoming... you know, the response to Greenberg's besmirching the integrity of the climate-research community. But wow - deniers, particularly of late, have that victimization card at the ready. In this case, it's simply Junior taking exception (one of many), to another person/group/body "daring" to cast any negative slight (presumed by Junior, or real), that might tarnish Junior's vaunted "Honest Broker" facade.

but, oh look! Simple found another buzzword - CAGW

On a slightly related topic:

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/251325/green-socialism-and-epa-greg-pollowitz

The fact that the EPA could even consider including "environmental justice" goals in its mandate illustrates how climate is being used to as a back door to impose government policies that are not acceptable to the public.

just another pathetic TimG reach... this one particularly hollow. Environmental Justice... you mean that early 80's concept... the one defined by the EPA as:

...the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.

Environmental Justice! Radical stuff, hey TimG? Given that EPA definition, just how might you extend upon it to support your puffery, where you claim the EPA is leveraging it's advocacy for Environmental Justice to use climate as, as you state, "a back door to impose government policies that are not acceptable to the public."

Edited October 28, 2010 by waldo

[TimG]

Is it nasty ? Yes, sure. The science, though, stands.

Science which is largely irrelevant when it comes to the discussion of what to do. What you see here is an author (Pielke) who advocates policies which oppose the policies desired by these activists claiming to be scientists. These activists use their position as scientists to bully journals and writers who report political views which they disapprove of. This is appalling and undermines the credibility of all scientists. Leaders in the scientific community should be demanding that these people stop claiming they represent the scientific community and if they wish to express their political views they must make it clear they are speaking as political activists - not a scientists. Edited October 28, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Science which is largely irrelevant when it comes to the discussion of what to do. What you see here is an author (Pielke) who advocates policies which oppose the policies desired by these activists claiming to be scientists. These activists use their position as scientists to bully journals and writers who report political views which they disapprove of. This is appalling and undermines the credibility of all scientists. Leaders in the scientific community should be demanding that these people stop claiming they represent the scientific community and if they wish to express their political views they must make it clear they are speaking as political activists - not a scientists.

Can we have a link to that ? I'd rather not just accept your version of what happened.

[TimG]

Can we have a link to that ? I'd rather not just accept your version of what happened.

The letter from Greenberg lays out a few of the facts. For example, they attempted to publically discredit him by claiming he was connected to some think tank that they did not approve of. In this case, Mann and co have not choosen to make their side public. I accept Greenberg's claims at face value because the what he describes is the normal mode of operation for Mann and other political activists in the scientific community.

There original story is here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7315/full/467526a.html

Edited October 28, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Ok.... so... again... we have a nasty letter TO the people who are supposedly the ones who were nasty.

[TimG]

.... so... again... we have a nasty letter TO the people who are supposedly the ones who were nasty.

And what reason do you have to believe the letter is not a reasonable response to provocation? The letter lays out facts that can be verified and those facts support the opinion.

For some reason, I suspect you would not hesistate to accept the AGW activist's versions of events. In fact, I know you would. As far as you are concerned a climate scientist could be caught with a bloody knife standing over a body and you would refuse to accept that a murder had taken place and the climate scientist was likely guilty unless you had a link to a peer reviewed artical on the topic.

Edited October 28, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

And what reason do you have to believe the letter is not a reasonable response to provocation? The letter lays out facts that can be verified and those facts support the opinion.

For some reason, I suspect you would not hesistate to accept the AGW activist's versions of events. In fact, I know you would. As far as you are concerned a climate scientist could be caught with a bloody knife standing over a body and you would refuse to accept that a murder had taken place and the climate scientist was likely guilty unless you had a link to a peer reviewed artical on the topic.

Actually we'd want to see the link to the court ruling that convicted him. It would be accepted that someone had been murdered.

[Michael Hardner]

And what reason do you have to believe the letter is not a reasonable response to provocation? The letter lays out facts that can be verified and those facts support the opinion.

See, this is how it works: you make a claim, and you provide the evidence. I make an effort to hold people to the same standard - AGW or otherwise. I have criticized both sides. You ?

[Michael Hardner]

Your honour, my client is INNOCENT !.... just click this link here....

[TimG]

See, this is how it works: you make a claim, and you provide the evidence. I make an effort to hold people to the same standard - AGW or otherwise. I have criticized both sides. You ?

No. I actually make a point of checking claims I suspect myself and responding with links or arguments that show the claim is not true. I don't respond with 'I am not even going to consider this until you show me a link'. Edited October 28, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

No. I actually make a point of checking claims I suspect myself and responding with links or arguments that show the claim is not true. I don't respond with 'I am not even going to consider this until you show me a link'.

Well, if you do it that way, then the work isn't on the person making the claim. Not fair, and not how it works. If you want to make a claim, be prepared to back it up if challenged. It's not on me to disprove your claims, be they claims about God's existence, secret letters, bigfoots etc.

[TimG]

Well, if you do it that way, then the work isn't on the person making the claim. Not fair, and not how it works.

Actually, it is perfectly fair and a more efficient use of my time because if I already suspect a claim that suspicion is not going to go away because someone provides a link. I know I will have to research the topic myself in order to respond to it. By doing that initial research myself I show that I am interested in having a dicussion. I see people who respond with nothing but a demand for links as lazy and have no real interest in discussing the point.

There is also another factor for me: if someone makes a claim that interests me enough to respond I want to know if it is has merit even if the person does not provide any links so I got to do the research anyways.

If a claim is of no interest to me or something I know is false I don't respond at all which requires no effort on my part.

Edited October 28, 2010 by TimG

[Pliny]

Mann, Ehrlich and Rahmsdorf doth protest too much, methinks.

Link for Michael

[Michael Hardner]

Mann, Ehrlich and Rahmsdorf doth protest too much, methinks.

Link for Michael

At least that's a link.

Ok, TimG, I got it. You're not going to post a link.

I don't believe you and my time is too precious to me to prove you wrong.

On we go...

[TimG]

I don't believe you and my time is too precious to me to prove you wrong.

I know that is what you meant. It is why I can't be bothered to give you link when you demand one. i.e. I don't believe you have an open mind on this point and no link would change your position.

You would save time if you just said it directly instead trying to pretend you had an interest in the discussion.

[waldo]

Can we have a link to that ? I'd rather not just accept your version of what happened.

I accept Greenberg's claims at face value because the what he describes is the normal mode of operation for Mann and other political activists in the scientific community.

If you want to make a claim, be prepared to back it up if challenged. It's not on me to disprove your claims, be they claims about God's existence, secret letters, bigfoots etc.

Ok, TimG, I got it. You're not going to post a link.

I don't believe you and my time is too precious to me to prove you wrong.

I know that is what you meant. It is why I can't be bothered to give you link when you demand one. i.e. I don't believe you have an open mind on this point and no link would change your position.

You would save time if you just said it directly instead trying to pretend you had an interest in the discussion.

no linkee? Is there a... uhhh... problem?

about your other claim... still waiting... (colour bold-highlighted emphasis added)

On a slightly related topic:

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/251325/green-socialism-and-epa-greg-pollowitz

The fact that the EPA could even consider including "environmental justice" goals in its mandate illustrates how climate is being used to as a back door to impose government policies that are not acceptable to the public.

just another pathetic TimG reach... this one particularly hollow.

Environmental Justice

... you mean that early 80's concept... the one

defined by the EPA as

:

...the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.

Environmental Justice! Radical stuff, hey TimG?

Given that EPA definition, just how might you extend upon it to support your puffery, where you claim the EPA is leveraging it's advocacy for Environmental Justice to use climate as, as you state, "

a back door to impose government policies that are not acceptable to the public

.

"

[Michael Hardner]

I know that is what you meant. It is why I can't be bothered to give you link when you demand one. i.e. I don't believe you have an open mind on this point and no link would change your position.

Without a link, we'll never know.

[Pliny]

Without a link, we'll never know.

Never in the biblical sense.

But Maybe he does already

Edited October 29, 2010 by Pliny

[TimG]

about your other claim... still waiting...

I have not had a chance to look into the record of what this committee has actually done. My initial response there should be no need for such a special committee. If EPA rulings are not being enforced consistently then the regular process should be sufficient to review and correct such inconsistencies. When these kinds of special committees are formed it invariably because the they want to create an excuse to manipulate the rules to benefit people from politically correct groups (i.e. enforcing the normal rules creates "inequity" in the eyes of social engineers which needs to be corrected). But you have made your argument, if I have a chance to dig it I will respond with the appropriate links. Edited October 29, 2010 by TimG

[Pliny]

When these kinds of special committees are formed it invariably because the they want to create an excuse to manipulate the rules to benefit people from politically correct groups (i.e. enforcing the normal rules creates "inequity" in the eyes of social engineers which needs to be corrected).

The purpose of buying and selling carbon offsets entirely.

waldo sees the necessity for political will but sees no distortions or abuses of science by introducing political will. Political will is entirely devoid of human contamination just as science is. However oil companies are evil, profit-seeking deniers.

At least they pay their taxes....I think that's why governments like them so much. I see big governments as evil, tax-grabbing extortionists.

And the twain shall not meet.

[waldo]

waldo sees the necessity for political will but sees no distortions or abuses of science by introducing political will.

Pliny, you are so off mark here... I've written at length about the abuses of aligned politics & science, particularly as reflects upon the antics of, for example, U.S. Republicans and their go-to collection of science abusing charlatans they regularly trot out for U.S. Congressional Committee testimony... and let's not forget my several posts concerning U.S. Republican Senator Inhofe and his side-kick Marc Morano - their Wegman charade is quite literally coming apart as I write this... I trust "blog-scientist" McIntyre and his lil' buddy McKitrick will have much to answer for. Would you like... more?

were there particular distortions or abuses of science you wished to discuss - or is this just another example of Plinyspeak?