Climate scientists have recently made some eye-opening discoveries. Here are a few of those discoveries. The richest multinational corporations in the world stand to lose trillions in future profits if the United States rapidly shifts away from carbon-intensive energy sources like oil, coal, and gas. Those companies will gladly spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year to fund a media campaign to attack climate science and scientists. This campaign is primarily aimed at conservatives, a fertile ground filled with vested business interests and religious fundamentalism. Conservative politicians have been transformed into climate zombies, claiming that climate science is a hoax while taking millions in campaign contributions from carbon energy companies.
Climate scientists have decided to take the fight to climate zombies.
Faced with rising political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists are joining a broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives who have threatened prominent researchers with investigations and vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
This latest push comes from the American Geophysical Union, a professional society of earth scientists many of which are engaged in investigating climate change in paleoclimate and atmospheric studies.
On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.
Los Angeles Times, Nov. 8, article by Neela Banerjee
The scientific community has learned the hard way that expecting the truth to carry the day against sophisticated public relations campaigns is naive. We live in a society with increasing poor scientific literacy. As the dead tree media dies, so does science journalism. This leaves the public prey to sophisticated corporate disinformation campaigns using electronic and social media with few checks, balances, and disinfectants.
The challenge is enormous. How do you communicate complicated research programs and findings to a public afflicted with electronic attention disorders that prefers information in tweetable sound-bytes? How do you reach and inspire younger generations in a public education system that has become the laughingstock of the industrialized world? How do you engage in policy discussions with politicians gladly willing to trade integrity for campaign cash and clandestine media support from multinational corporations that use $100 bills as toilet paper in executive bathrooms?
Scientists have become more vocal in the past year against constant attacks and disinformation by conservative media personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Christopher Monckton. Individual scientists have attempted to systematically debunk the lies of clowns like Monckton, a favorite of the conservative media circuit. Those efforts highlight the difficulty on tugging on the cape of super climate zombies.
After Monckton visited St. Thomas University in Minnesota, physicist John Abraham posted a 70-minute dissection of the Monckton's bunk.
"What has really bothered me is that the scientific community has not been effectively conveying science to the public," said Abraham, a tenured associate professor of thermal sciences at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul. "I think it’s our obligation to make sure that the public has the right information so that we can make the right decisions that are going to have to be made and [to explain] that the science still has some questions within it.
Minnesota Post, July 20, article by Casey Selix
Monckton studied classical literature at Cambridge and character assassination as an economic advisor to Margaret Thatcher. He knew better than debate science with a scientist.
Based on what I’ve read, seen and heard in the last 24 hours, I think it’s safe to say that Monckton went ballistic, even going so far as to say Abraham looks like "an overcooked prawn" in one piece, telling Alex Jones on his show that St. Thomas is a "half-assed Catholic Bible college" and claiming he has contacted university funders and the bishop, who he says hasn’t replied because he’s "so busy sorting out problems with little boys."
"Just about every one of the 115 slides presented by Abraham in his shoddy little piece of lavishly funded venom contains serious, serial, material errors, exaggerations, or downright lies," Monckton wrote in a piece titled "Monckton: At last, the climate extremists try to debate us!" on Pajamas Media.
Minnesota Post, July 20, article by Casey Selix
When Monckton's attacks in the conservative echo chamber did not bully Abraham to remove his presentation, the stiff upper lip demanded that St. Thomas fire Abraham and pleaded with television weather forecaster Anthony Watts to send the brain-dead faithful of WattsUpWithThat to pressure the university.
The American Geophysical Union's approach presents strength in numbers.
"This group feels strongly that science and politics can't be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists," said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York.
"We are taking the fight to them because we are … tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed."
Los Angeles Times, Nov. 8, article by Neela Banerjee
The National Academy of Science has also become more active in combating the disinformation campaign aimed at climate science, issuing detailed summaries of current knowledge and policy implications.
Other scientists are developing "rapid response" teams to push back against attacks. Their hope is to reach people not currently under the stupefying influence of Fox News, Limbaugh, and conservative think tanks.
"People who've already dug their heels in, we're not going to change their opinions," Mandia said. "We're trying to reach people who may not have an opinion or opinion based on limited information."
Los Angeles Times, Nov. 8, article by Neela Banerjee
The oil-funded Heartland Institute is already spinning into action before the American Geophysical Union makes its formal announcement.
"People who ask for and accept taxpayer dollars shouldn't get bent out of shape when asked to account for the money," said James M. Taylor, a senior fellow and a specialist in global warming at the conservative Heartland Institute in Chicago. "The budget is spiraling out of control while government is handing out billions of dollars in grants to climate scientists, many of whom are unabashed activists."
Los Angeles Times, Nov. 8, article by Neela Banerjee
The budget is spiraling out of control because of wars of choice and tax cuts for the wealthy, efforts heavily promoted by Heartland and other conservative think tanks. It is funny how activism is wonderful when conservatives engage in it, but requires investigation when others contradict conservative talking points.
It remains to be seen what effect the attempts by climate scientists to fight back against climate zombies will have on the American people. Climate zombie Teapublicans were elected despite their calls to ignore science and kill clean energy. However, one thing is certain. Staying quiet and publishing studies in scientific journals will change nothing. Conservatives in power will still persecute them. Our unprecedented experiment to see what effects pumping gigatons of carbon gases into the atmosphere will have on the planet's climate will continue. Silence is complicity. And just maybe the public will eventually wake up.
Here is recent letter by the president of American Geophysical Union to the Richmond Times-Dispatch on the persecution of climate scientist Michael Mann by Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli.
Scientists, and indeed all Americans, should cheer the news reported recently in the article, "Judge Dismisses Cuccinelli Demands in UVa Case." By denying Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's demand for private e-mails and other documents related to the research of a former university professor, Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. struck a victory blow for academic freedom and objective scientific inquiry.
Cuccinelli's unwarranted demands raise concern that a public official -- a known climate-change denier -- is using the power of his office to pursue a personal agenda rather than defending the legitimate interests of his state. For a senior elected official to participate in and encourage efforts to undermine legitimate scientific research is irresponsible and a detriment to the public good.The scientific process gave us human flight, life-saving drugs, telecommunications, abundant food, and cleaner water and air. Now, that same process is helping us understand how and why the climate is changing, and informing steps that policymakers can take to protect society against those changes.
If political pressure squelches scientific research, climate change will not magically disappear, but objective knowledge to inform good decisions will.
Michael McPhaden,
President, American Geophysical Union. Washington, D.C.
Richmond Times-Dispatch, Sept 17.
Here is a comment from Michael Oppenheimer, a prominent AGU member, on the new initiative.
What’s true is that A.G.U. asked members who among them would volunteer for various outreach activities. This would be about science, of course. Whether it’s 700, I do not know. I only know that I volunteered, and by the way, am on the outreach committee for A.G.U. right now.
There’s plenty of worry about Issa, Barton, Inhofe et al., but it may be that with the legislation dead for now, these fellows will turn their efforts elsewhere. But it doesn’t hurt to be ready and, in any event, the scientific ideas need to be explained and defended.
In my view, lots of people, particularly the philanthropic community, erred seriously in deciding that the scientific case was firm enough in the public’s and leaders’ minds so that they didn’t need to worry about it. The fact is the science is organic, and so is its opposition. It’s always a weak underbelly because the average person or political leader or business leader doesn’t have a firm grasp on it (in the case of the first category, why should they?) and the science is always evolving, so it’s always easy to generate confusion (see Merchants of Doubt). It will happen again. So what’s needed now is a serious effort to understand how expert information is taken up by the public (and key opinion leaders) and how to best inform them. The professional societies, the National Academies, the [nonprofit groups], the philanthropy community, and individual natural and social scientists all need to do more. Regardless of the particulars of the ultimate policy response, clearer, more reliable, trusted sources of organized information is needed.
I’m on the board of Climate Central, one such effort. We need many in different niches.
Tenney Naumer at Climate Change Psychology makes an important point about science and advocacy.
If a scientist wants to join the policy fray and retain credibility, a vital step is to distinguish between assertions supported by data and those framed by personal values.
Scientists have to walk a fine line to talk about science and policy implications without becoming embroiled in politics per se, which makes them an even easier target for conservative attack campaigns. We face one of biggest challenges we have ever faced as a species, yet the people most knowledgeable about the threat must walk on eggshells and dodge character assassination missiles.