Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Wall Street Journal Slammed for Giving Platform to Climate Change Deniers
In response to an op-ed printed late last week in the Wall Street Journal, signed by sixteen 'scientists' and entitled, 'No Need to Panic About Global Warming,' thirty-nine climate scientists have penned a letter, printed in today's WSJ, arguing that taking advice on climate change from scientists who have either "no expertise in climate science" or "extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert" is akin to allowing dentists perform heart surgery.
A letter from some 40 leading scientists, which the Wall Street Journal published, noted that 97% of researchers who publish on climate change agree the phenomenon is real and caused by humans. (Photograph: Mark Lennihan/AP) Suzanne Goldenberg reports for The Guardian:
The Wall Street Journal has received a dressing down from a large group of leading scientists for promoting retrograde and out-of-date views on climate change.
In an opinion piece run by the Journal on Wednesday, nearly 40 scientists, including acknowledged climate change experts, take on the paper for publishing an article disputing the evidence on global warming.
The offending article, No Need to Panic About Global Warming, which appeared last week, argued that climate change was a cunning ploy deployed by governments to raise taxes and by non-profit organisations to solicit donations to save the planet.
It was signed by 16 scientists who don't subscribe to the conventional wisdom that climate change is happening and is largely man-made - but as Wednesday's letter points out, many of those who signed don't actually work on climate science.
Here's the full letter, along with the signatories:
Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.
You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.
Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.
Thus, climate experts also know what one of us, Kevin Trenberth, actually meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in the op-ed. Mr. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean and other aspects of the short-term variations that always occur, together with the long-term human-induced warming trend.
The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (set up by President Abraham Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases.
Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses. In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.
Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Richard Somerville, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
Katharine Hayhoe, Ph.D., Director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech University
Rasmus Benestad, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute
Gerald Meehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences; Director, Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy, Princeton University
Peter Gleick, Ph.D., co-founder and president, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security
Michael C. MacCracken, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, Climate Institute, Washington
Michael Mann, Ph.D., Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
Steven Running, Ph.D., Professor, Director, Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana
Robert Corell, Ph.D., Chair, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; Principal, Global Environment Technology Foundation
Dennis Ojima, Ph.D., Professor, Senior Research Scientist, and Head of the Dept. of Interior's Climate Science Center at Colorado State University
Josh Willis, Ph.D., Climate Scientist, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Matthew England, Ph.D., Professor, Joint Director of the Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia
Ken Caldeira, Ph.D., Atmospheric Scientist, Dept. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution
Warren Washington, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Terry L. Root, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University
David Karoly, Ph.D., ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia
Jeffrey Kiehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Donald Wuebbles, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois
Camille Parmesan, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, University of Texas; Professor of Global Change Biology, Marine Institute, University of Plymouth, UK
Simon Donner, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Canada
Barrett N. Rock, Ph.D., Professor, Complex Systems Research Center and Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire
David Griggs, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University, Australia
Roger N. Jones, Ph.D., Professor, Professorial Research Fellow, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Australia
William L. Chameides, Ph.D., Dean and Professor, School of the Environment, Duke University
Gary Yohe, Ph.D., Professor, Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University, CT
Robert Watson, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Chair of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Steven Sherwood, Ph.D., Director, Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Chris Rapley, Ph.D., Professor of Climate Science, University College London, UK
Joan Kleypas, Ph.D., Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research
James J. McCarthy, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D., Professor of Physics of the Oceans, Potsdam University, Germany
Julia Cole, Ph.D., Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona
William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D., President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Jonathan Overpeck, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona
Eric Rignot, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Professor of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine
Wolfgang Cramer, Professor of Global Ecology, Mediterranean Institute for Biodiversity and Ecology, CNRS, Aix-en-Provence, France
###



109 Comments so far
Show AllIt is only recently that they have become social advocates.
We are all members of the body politic, aren't we? Meaning we all contribute to the dialectic that is whatever our world becomes. If that makes any sense....
Climate scientists have been jumping up and down making all the noise they can for many years. The corporate media may ignore them, but they have not been sequestered in any "academic cocoon."
Some of the best sources of information are websites run by scientists or dedicated science journalists:
Joe Romm has been the hardest working climate blogger out there for a long time. If you only have space for one climate bookmark, make it Climate Progress.
A very up-to-date, serious science journalism site. Many of the stories making the rounds show up first on Climate Central.
Reclaiming the true spirit of scientific skepticism, Skeptical Science is dedicated to debunking the deniers for all audiences, but also follows breaking news developments.
The 11 contributors comprising RealClimate really are the smartest guys in the room - eminent climate scientists at the top of their craft. If you're interested in the technical details, there's no better source.
You may have heard of this guy. Many invaluable papers and opinion pieces are made available on his website (five from January alone).
Tamino's specialty is statistical analysis.
Bill Chalmeides, Dean of Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment, posting several times a week on environmental happenings.
The definitive history - a free online book by Spencer Weart.
Maybe the media titans will never see fit to talk to these scientists. But if we can meet them halfway by visiting their websites, they have much to say.
But I think it has been true that scientists have resisted becoming advocates, politically and socially, for many years. It is part of the professional mien. To be considered "objective", one must be above the political fray. To advocate would subject one's work to charges of, you know, bias and partisanship. There were also employment repercussions to consider. I've talked to some scientists, and at least for them, this was very much a part of their behavioral calculus.
This is not to blame them. But if we are to understand and come to grips with the forces that currently grip the US, we cannot turn a blind eye to how things operate. The power dynamic, if you will. And we all need to become active, because the existing power structure will never act of its own volition. That means all of us-- scientists, medical workers, cubicle workers, sanitation workers, everyone.
It is a fact that most scientists are of the mindset that once they have completed their reaearch and published their peer reviewed finding, they don't argue it or fight it, they most often will ignore their detractors and deniers... That is until very recently what the climate scientis have done.
In addition; the decent climate scientists are up against a corrupt mass media, which is controlled by big business and of course big business denies global warming... The editors of the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and other news sources are just a guilty of great harm as the professional global warming deniers... They display a great lack of decent and honest character... And besides that, they are incredibly stupid.
Hansen has been arrested at demonstrations, but never fired.
His current post, which he has held for 30 years, is head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA. Hansen's personal style is quite modest, but his stature as a climate scientist is unparalleled.
Dr. Hansen was just threatened by the Bush Administration who attempted to silence him... After a speech Hansen gave in 2006, the following was given to him... ( oficials relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued,).
The Bush administration did discredit him with many.
And in reply to the next commenter... I didn't say ALL of big business denied global warming, the ones who control our MSN and our congress do.
~ In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. ~
given the chemical and industrial devastation already wreaked upon this planet by the human species, and given the ongoing, longterm (half-life) and fatal nature of these activities, and given the obvious violence and corruption of the world's governing entities, there are few sentences any scientist could put together that would raise an eyebrow like this one...
for any one group of scientists to ridicule another, then put forth this travesty of a promise, leaves one feeling without any scientists, at all...
yes, climate is important, but there is another C word, even more important...
chemicals...
can any scientist say that word? and promise decades of growth?
growth other than cancer?
Dubet
Just a personal opinion:
Everyone is playing catchup. Climate specialists are not necessarily tuned in to "The Limits to Growth", which is primarily an economic argument based on the natural world.
And political science specialists such as Francis Fukuyama are not necessarily up to speed on climate science or the state of the ecosphere.
It is possible that a new type of specialist is now required more than ever -
That would be the well rounded generalist, with imagination sufficient to digest complex information from all fields and come to accurate conclusions about what to do -
These generalists might have monickers like "artist", "musician", "poet", "mountaineer", or "OCCUPIER".
Manysummits
=======But at some point, growth has to stop, unless another planet like ours happens along. Not very likely.
Growth can't continue indefinitely, because no matter how much you reduce pollution and bad side effects of economic activity (economists refer to this as "throughput" for some inscrutable reason), there will always be some small percentage of environmental degradation involved. Thus, in a finite system, there must be an end to growth. It can't continue forever, because that small percentage is always there, and will ultimately overwhelm the natural systems we rely on.
Of course, economists and politicians never think in these terms. The growth paradigm has been accepted as an article of economic faith.
In the short term, we can get away with reducing our footprint, becoming more efficient, etc. But ultimately, we can't have unending growth. It will kill us. It already is.
You're certainly getting closer - it's more like 4 billion years ago that solar luminosity was 70% of its current brightness. Stars the size of our Sun gradually warm up.
This is called the faint young Sun paradox. While the Sun has warmed, Earth systems have held temperatures within the narrow range conducive to life. The realization that the biosphere has been optimizing the atmosphere is at the core of the Gaia Hypothesis.
I appreciate your return of our common focus to those pleasurable pursuits that are sourced from friendly familiarity within, and from commonality of contact and humor with one's immediate fellows...
rudimentary social interaction that employs the brain and body, from song and dance to dramatic or comedic theater, physical competition to sex...the joys of individual mental contemplation and creation...the simple acts of acquiring and preparing food, or grooming one another...
these things are the good that epitomize the offering held forth in the name of understandably disconcerting change...
we are always well reminded of this...good on you...
Compounding degradation: if Dow announced a thousand job openings, twenty thousand would stand in line for days, resume in hand.
I just hitched a nosehit to you on a radioactive breeze passing...
it should reach you in a day or so...
hope it finds you well...nice to see you posting...
I inherited an abandoned cat...he's about 2 or so, and really got personality... he scratches me up pretty good, then we nap a while...
tip o' the hat to Gene Wilder, Marty Feldman and the great Mel Brooks: 'could be worse...could be raining'
no shit...
The jetstream must be clipping along. Something is wafting.
Twenty degrees above "normal" again today.
Garlic has poked through the snow.
Seattle's pretty mild anyway but this "winter" has been absurd. We did have three days of cold, including a rare ice-storm, but roses in our front yard still have not gone dormant. i just commented to my housemate on the blackberries in the back yard that still have green leaves.
Now our early hints of Spring are arriving, it's going to reach near 60 F this week. i expect to see lots of things, including garden trouble-makers, that would normally be knocked back by the winter, surging strong early this growing season.
There is no "normal" year any more, bizarre is the new normal.
True dat.
I just read that the Ukraine is experiencing their coldest temps in 100 years.
People are succumbing to the elements.
Fair and balanced
I wonder why Fox is allowed to call itself a 'news broadcast' when a large preponderance of its programs are commentary and editorializing by politicized talking heads. It seems so many are engrossed by this spittle. All I see are aliens. Where is the Patriot Act when we really need it?
I love the opening sentence in their letter: "Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition?".
Because as much as the Fox News crowd loves to dismiss pointy-headed scientists and university researchers as "know-it-all elistists" worthy of scorn, they wouldn't want to fly in a plane that wasn't commanded by a highly-trained specialist (i.e., "elitist") pilot -- regardless of his politics -- nor subject themselves to open-heart surgery by anyone other than a highly-trained specialist (i.e., "elitist") in medicine, regardless of whether or not he is, personally speaking, an arrogant prick.
So ... why do they so casually dismiss the findings of highly-trained specialists in the field of climate science?
Oh, yeah, I forgot: They hate Al Gore; therefore global warming doesn't exist.
That and the fact that many of them won't be around long enough to fully suffer the consequences. We can leave that to our children and grandchildren ... much as we are leaving them the credit-card bill for our wars in Iraq and Afganistan, which this generation was too spoiled to pay for.
Better would have been something like "podiatrist."
Actually their "logic" is reversed:
- Global warming (mustn't) exist (in public awareness);
- Therefore they hate Al Gore.
Burt Rutan - designer of the Long EZ experimental aircraft (a cool airplane) was one of the 'silly sixteen' who signed this climate change denier pièce de résistance...
My immediate thought was: would Burt fly in an airplane designed by a climate scientist?
This animated gif sums up the situation crisply:
That's a threadbare talking point from the fossil fuel predators.
Most of Texas is in severe or exceptional drought right now. With La Niña reigning through Spring, 2012 looks like another dry year for the parched Southwest US. Go tell Texas farmers how much plants love CO2.
So the Wall Street Journal editors' front paged their corrupt, lying article and refused to run a counter article signed by 115 climate scientists... They did finally publish their letter to the Editor, whch is not front page news.
I do have one problem with the real climate scientists, which is; they are far too conservative and have been so for far too long... They still speak of "by the end of the century or by 2130, we will have serious problems."
That is horribly wrong, we have a (most) serious problem (right now) and by 2020 or sooner global warming will be out of control, unless drastic measures are taken now to prevent runaway and "irreversible" global warming.
"Irreversible" means exactly that,,, irreversible,,, no do-overs, no turning back and starting over, or trying to fix it.
When the most dangerous feedback loop to global warming triggers, the Arctic methane releasing by a half billion or more tons a year, global warming will be out of control and an eventual planet so incredibly hot, that life will be near unbearable, if not totally unbearable.
That could occur within the next few years 10 to 20, unless strong world wide corrective action is taken now.... And world leaders do not have time to argue it, debate it, or wait and see, or do as they have done at the past four climate conferences,,, which was essentially nothing.
That is how it is, that is reality and we cannot alter or change reality... Anyone can ignore or deny reality however, such as the editors of the W S Journal.
They still speak of "by the end of the century or by 2130, we will have serious problems."
Trenberth's letter above, quoted in entirety, says no such thing. In general, I do not share your impression that climate scientists are only warning of problems far in the future. In particular, my impression is that leading voices such as Joe Romm have been warning about immediate threats loud and clear - with the most immediate threat being permanent drought, which we're already seeing in the US Southwest.
What's happening to Lake Mead (the largest reservoir in the US) could be irreversible in the sense that we're probably watching it dry up, and it won't be coming back. This is happening now, not in 10 or 20 years.
Southwest Turns Anxious Eye to Shrinking Lake Mead
Now it is a bit late to give the dire warnings which should have been screamed from the roof tops many years ago.... The very important article published by John Atcheson in 2004 was ignored, as well as the Arctic methane threat... Even very recently some top climate scientists have totally downplayed the Arctic methane threat and they were wrong, way wrong.
If top climate scientists had given that dire warning years ago and stated, something like, "Look, this is what is happening and we must act (immediately) to correct it or the game will be permanently over"), instead of saying things like, "by the year 2100, or the end of the century", perhaps some good may have taken place at the first climate Kyoto conference... Now time is very short.
Doing something is politically impossible. Big oil and big coal have made it politically impossible. It is impossible because of lobbying that controls the Federal politics. The money and the 1% are standing in the way.
But it is very possible in another sense. I watched a new video by some pointy head, and preventing this catastrophe is still relatively easy. He represents a team that has done the numbers on how to meet global emission targets in the most painless way. When you analyse carbon usage by classes of use, it turns out that would have to be done is to render illegal the worst excesses. Meeting the global emissions targets is still do-able, and nobody has to suffer. Targets can be met by the following government regulation:-
- Flying has to stop.
- New cars have to achieve a high mileage. I forget what that actually was, but poor mileage cars have to be made illegal, and new SUVs are definitely out.
- There were other requirements to do with air conditioning and heating.
It would still be not that hard to do. All that is required is for the oil and coal corporations to stop funding their denialists so that we can have the political will to do what is needed.You left out two other major keys that can and must be shifted sharply:
- War is over: the Pentagon is the largest single institutional producer of greenhouse gases, and produces nothing of value;
- Agriculture is holistic: petro-chemical ag by some measures is the largest contributing economic sector to carbon emissions and climate change; intensive diverse bio-regional agriculture produces more nutrition per acre, and will absorb surplus labor from the fast-diminishing military sector.
After 8 years of writing about the Arctic methane threat, and bening clasified as a crazy doomsayer, a crackpot Chicken Little and being called a rat SOB, a crazy, caged, shit flinging baboon, a stupid pig bastard, a dispicible lying scumbag fool, etc. "rosy" is a compliment.. I can be much less "rosy".
You say we have already passed the tipping point... Well Robert, that is an opinion, not proven to be a fact,,, as yet.
Your suggestion of what must be done by everyone is also not near good enough or timely enough Robert, not if you wish to live to a ripe old age and see your children and or grand children, if any, have a fair chance at a decent life and not die young.
I will reply further at the end of the comments. ~~Kem P. ~~
Life simultaneously seeks balance (stasis) and change (growth); the end result is biodiversity, the harmony of balance, the glory of Nature's expression. The disruption and reduction of diversity is the human specie's greatest shame.
Members of modern culture fear losing the things they crave, want and desire. I know what you are saying, but would remove Love from the list or add a modifier like false. "Loving" a television is not real Love. Modern culture has been disconnected from Nature and lost the Love of Life.
The prescient question is; where do we go from here?
The best I can render is:
Think large
Live small