The Washington Times let’s us in on the story
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.
Apparently, the science can’t stand on its own. What say you, alarmists?
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.
Science! And then there is “Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford professor and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment who was part of the e-mail discussion,” who told the WT that engaging in an ad battle is crazy, because those wacky skeptics just have so much more money. Really? Joanne Nova points out
Somehow the tables have turned. For all the smears of big money funding the “deniers”, the numbers reveal that the sceptics are actually the true grassroots campaigners, while Greenpeace defends Wall St. How times have changed.
Sceptics are fighting a billion dollar industry aligned with a trillion dollar trading scheme. Big Oil’s supposed evil influence has been vastly outdone by Big Government, and even those taxpayer billions are trumped by Big-Banking.
The big-money side of this debate has fostered a myth that sceptics write what they write because they are funded by oil profits. They say, follow the money? So I did and it’s chilling. Greens and environmentalists need to be aware each time they smear with an ad hominem attack they are unwittingly helping giant finance houses.
Read the whole story as Jo does, in fact, follow the money.
There is massive money involved in being a climate alarmist. Just ask Al Gore.
Tom Nelson: Arctic sea ice extent: greater than it was 5 years ago. Antarctic sea ice extent “unusually high”
There is No Frakking “Scientific Consensus” on Global Warming: Despite protests from expert reviewers, 42% of the documents cited in one chapter of the climate bible (UN IPCC) are grey literature rather than peer-reviewed.
How could there be a Climategate II when there was no Climategate I? The other “climategate” was exposed as being based on nothing but excerpts from emails being taken out of context.
Reasic is a Climategate denier. LOL
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Reasic, yes there is too a Climategate I & II! No such “exposure” has occurred, there is proof that the “scientists” involved were willing to cheat and fudge and lie about statistics to get their way. That alone tarnishes the rest of any studies they’ve done, and that was what I argued with you about before. Start over folks, and this time be scientific about your results- not emotional.
Good God Man, can’t you at least admit that these fools have been lying to and manipulating you as well as the rest of us????
Trish,
What “proof” is there that any fudging or lying occurred? That’s what I keep asking, but no one around here seems to want to answer. You all talk in generalities, never offering up specifics.
I believe the last time we discussed this matter, tried to explain how most of the uproar has been over a typo in the section on Himalayan glaciers (2035 vs. 2350), and how ridiculous it was that many of you wanted to throw out the entire report (over three large phone books worth) over that one typo. I don’t believe anyone refuted that point, either.
There haven’t even been any problems found in the first Working Group’s report, which is where the evidence for AGW rests. The two or three discrepancies that have been found were in WGII or WGIII. I know WHY you would want to stretch this out to be something bigger than it is, and use it to slam AGW on the whole, but the basis for that argument is non-existent.
So please, please, PLEASE, give some SPECIFICS. What was wrong, how was it wrong, and how does it warrant starting over? Let’s see your evidence that you still have not provided.
Oh, and Teach:
How much of that grey literature exists in the first Working Group’s report (where the evidence for AGW exists)?
And once again the agw donkey comes by to Brrraaaaa-a-a-a-ay-y-y-y-y!
[…] William Teach points out the absurdity of this: … those wacky skeptics just have so much more money. Really? Joanne Nova points out […]
Same Paul Ehrlich that was predicting massive food shortages in the 70’s? “Population Bomb” Ehrlich?
is there Full consensus” on the age of the earth ? or “evolution” WTF many don’t believe NASA put a man on the moon NASA says they put a man on the Moon aAND they say the Earth is getting warmer. I believe them. SCIENCE !! not everybody believes in it. Some still believe in soperstions
[…] Here’s another shocker. There’s another Climate Gate scandal! Read all about it at Pirate’s Cove. […]