Yet another whinging letter from climate scientists

Still an embarrassment

Climate scientists can sense they’re being found out. You can always tell, because they start writing bleating letters to journals banging their fists and saying “It’s not fair” like toddlers who don’t get their own way. And yes, another one appears today in the pages of Science. You can read the full text at the Guardian (of course) here. The opening paragraph sets the tone:

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. [and our wallets – Ed]

And our own chief scientist Penny Sackett can’t support it quickly enough. Sackett is a regular on these pages (see here and here) for her extreme views on climate change, and she still hasn’t learnt that being a scientist is all about free-thinking and impartial enquiry, not eco-Marxist environmental advocacy:

AUSTRALIA’S chief scientists Professor Penny Sackett has backed a group of eminent international scientists calling for urgent action on climate change.

Professor Sackett said governments everywhere needed to show more leadership on climate change action.

“Even if each one of us on the face of the earth stopped emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow, not another ounce into the atmosphere, the temperature would still rise,” she told ABC radio today.

“I would say that every delay makes it harder for ourselves in the future. I’d like us to also think about how much more difficult it makes it for the next generation.”

In their open letter published in the journal Science, the group of 250 scientists called for rationale [sic] debate and not to have discussion deflected by extreme views. (source)

Rational debate? Don’t make me laugh. And “extreme views” in this context means anything that challenges the pseudoscience of An Inconvenient Truth, I guess. And then there is the inevitable victim status plea for the sympathy vote. The letter reads:

“We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.”

You have to laugh, don’t you. So let’s get this straight: destroying emails is innuendo perhaps? Fudging data is innuendo maybe? If these guys were accountants or lawyers they would understand this concept better – because they would be in prison.

Just more evidence that the consensus scientists can see their cash cow being sent to market, and they are doing everything to keep their precious funds flowing in. Sorry guys, the public (who are far more intelligent than you have ever given them credit for) are not falling for it any more.

UPDATE: And a timely Galaxy opinion poll demonstrates that exact point:

Two out of three Australians are not convinced climate change is man-made, and even those who do believe it is aren’t prepared to pay much to fix it, a new poll shows.

A Galaxy Poll, commissioned by the conservative Institute of Public Affairs, found 35 per cent of respondents blamed humans for global warming.

Fully 26 per cent believed it was just part of a natural cycle, while 38 per cent remained uncertain. [Total 64% – Ed]

Thirty-five per cent said they would not be prepared to pay anything to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming.

Of those who believed climate change to be man-made, 27 per cent said they would be prepared to pay only $100 or less a year in increased tax and utility costs. (source)


  1. Lachlan says:

    Good to see you back Simon!

    Saw this rubbish on Aunty this am and wondered in anger once more why my taxes should help the fruit employed there push their left wing green religious agenda.

  2. The global warming whiners now know people are pissed for having been fooled by them for the several decades.

  3. McHarris says:

    In the Australian News tonight Scientists are claiming that the Climate Debate has been derailed!

    Two-hundred-and-fifty scientists have signed an open letter saying they are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation in attacks on climate scientists, saying political action has been derailed.

    BUT THERE IS MORE……………… keep fighting people

  4. Bob Holness says:

    The only person whingeing and bleating is you. 255 of the world’s top scientists, just don’t count do they when you’re completely reactionary like your column?

  5. Look, no one in there right mind believes we should continue to pullute the air, ground and water the way we have been over the last 100 years. Both the left and right can agree on this. But there is no way we can justify the introduction of a cap&trade system to save the planet from climate change based on the weak conclusion that human emissions of CO2 are entirly responsible. So dump the Cap&Trade idea. If the government wants to introduce some target to reduce our collective pollution; that can be agreed upon as long as it’s done in an incremental way and employment is maintained or created.

    Just think; If someone were to put a windmill or solar panels on their roof to reduce their carbon footprint, it will cost $50,000 and employ people. Terrific. But with a cap&Trade sytem in place, the same thing can be achieved by simply buying $50 worth of carbon credits. Who would spend $50,000 on green tech when the same thing can be done for $50? No one, that’s who. So a cap&Trade system would kill 1000’s of green jobs. I’m mystified by why anyone would want to introduce Cap&trade. What is really the goal of Cap&Trade, who is really behind this thing?

  6. 255 top scientists? What a joke – have you read their names and qualifications? These people are second-string petty academics/school teachers and practically none of them even call themselves climate scientists.

    Speaking of climate science and man-made global warming I just want to know where the warming is exactly. Argos buoys show the oceans cooling…sea level rise is decreasing…arctic/antarctic ice levels are fine thank you…the weather has been quite chilly the last few years…shouldn’t something on earth be getting hotter? Anything? Where is the warming? Is anyone, anywhere suffering from this global calamity? Have any of these so-called experts accurately predicted anything?

    If these bozo “climate experts” had a shred of integrity, they would be publishing a letter of apology for all the trouble they have caused by wasting public funds on this faddish foolishness and distracting us from solving real problems like poverty, malaria, AIDS, not to mention ignorance and superstition.

    It’s just such a shame these charlatans have made off with billions of dollars of public money with so little to show. And now they write an angry letter. These people have no shame.

  7. Slabadang says:

    “Like Toddlers” !

    Thats an even better metafore than my one “princesses on peas”. Theyve totally lost it and has no contact with reality anymore. Is it our fault that they lost our trust and confidence? Climate hypocondria dressed up to science?? Spread trhe word they have spent to many bucks allready!!

  8. Enduser says:

    Here are the first 20 signatories. See any atmospheric or climate scientists among them? I didn’t think so.

    Robert McC. Adams – Division of Social Sciences, UCSD

    Richard M Amasino – Biochemist, UW Madison

    Edward Anders – Geologist, University of Chicago

    David J. Anderson – Biologist, Cal Tech

    Luc Anselin – Geographer, ASU

    Mary Kalin Arroyo – Biologist, University of Chile

    Dr. Berhane Asfaw – Palaeoanthropologist, Rift Valley Research Service

    FRANCISCO J. AYALA – Professor of Biological Sciences, UC Irvine

    Dr. Ad Bax – Physics, NIH

    Anthony Bebbington – Professor of Nature, University of Manchester

    Gordon Bell – Computer Pioneer

    MICHAEL VANDER LAAN BENNETT – Neuroscientist, Albert Einstein College of Medicine

    Jeffrey Bennetzen – Geneticist, University of Washington

    May R. Berenbaum – Entomologist, UIUC

    Overton Brent Berlin – Anthropologist, University of Georgia

    Pamela Bjorkman – Biologist, Cal tech

    Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn – Biologist, UCSF

    Jacques Blamont – Astrophysicist

    Michael Botchan – Biochemistry, Berkeley

    John S. Boyer – Marine Biosciences, University of Delaware

  9. The fake photo used to accompany the letter in Science, says it all!

  10. Lachlan says:

    “The fake photo used to accompany the letter in Science, says it all!”

    Yes, I saw that one MarcH. Amazing. Nothing better than a bit of subliminal conditioning to further the cause eh?

  11. why 255? Did they run out of memory on the Z80?

    • Ha ha! Yes indeed – and I’m not sure if the letter would have fitted in the 16K of static RAM that we had back then!

      Thanks for visiting, Maurizio – great fan of your blog! 🙂

  12. thank you very much Simon. In next post (10AM GMT, May 10) I shall briefly point at a case of hypocrisy regarding the content of the letter. I guess a crisis (such as the one elicited by the photoshopped polar bear) is when everybody reveals their true colours.

    BTW…are you on Twitter? My username over there is “omnologos”.

%d bloggers like this: