Six weeks before the November 1996 Congressional election,
Science, of course, publishes professional papers reporting serious research work and has done so for many decades. The first research paper I ever published was in Science in 1965, reporting work that I had done as an undergraduate at Caltech.
Besides reporting new research, however,
Science (along with the similar British publication, Nature) serves as a gossip column for scientists throughout the world. News of special interest and popularized summary reports of noteworthy advances in a wide variety of research fields are also published.Unfortunately, as tax financing of non-defense research has grown
since World War II, the "news'' in Science and Nature has become increasingly preoccupied with keeping the welfare payments flowing. Concomitantly, the editorial policy of these journals has become slanted. Research reports that imply an excuse for more tax funding are favored over those that imply the opposite.In keeping with this slant, scientists who claim that "climate change'' is a major problem that justifies the billions of dollars of tax money now being spent each year to study it have found publication of their reports in
Science and Nature to be quite easy and quick. Those who report, however, that natural factors explain climate variations and that their research results do not support the expensive global warming bandwagon find publication much more difficult. One such prominent scientist told me of waiting two years for review of a paper by Science - only to have the research report then rejected.[It is important to realize that, while tax funding of research is wasteful and unprincipled, these adjectives cannot be fairly applied to all scientists who currently have government grants. Most academic scientists have such grants - including many of America's most brilliant scientists. These people have little choice for support, since government grants have pushed down or out alternative private sources of funds that would otherwise be available to them.]
In connection with our Petition Project, reporters for both
Science and Nature have telephoned here. Both were professional in their interviews - although the reporter from Nature was clearly suspicious of a scientific institution (Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) that did not solicit or accept tax funding. He actually asked me if I did not agree with him that tax funding (and the bureaucratic process involved in awarding government grants) is an important part of the "peer review'' process. The reporter from Science was preoccupied with the format issue and declined to discuss any aspect of the scientific facts.Nature
has not yet reported about the project, but Science has - with a predictable slant. Their article emphasizes the red herring about format that the enviros have been using unsuccessfully in their efforts to counter the Petition Project. "Climate Change: Advocacy Mailing Draws Fire'' by David Malakoff, Science 280 (1998), p 195 reads: "In early March, tens of thousands of U. S. scientists received a bulk-mailed letter from Frederick Seitz, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and of Rockefeller University in New York City. It invited them to sign an enclosed petition urging lawmakers to reject the 1997 Kyoto climate treaty (Science, 19 De-cember, p. 2048), which awaits approval by the U. S. Senate."The substance of the mailing might have attracted little notice in the flurry of position papers that the treaty has spawned. But some scientists and environmentalists are crying foul because its centerpiece is an article that looks like - but is not - a reprint from the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 'The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review.' says Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Chicago."The eight-page review article concludes that predictions of global warming 'are in error' and that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are 'a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution,' because they have produced 'an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals.' Its co-authors are chemist Arthur Ro-binson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine; Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary; and astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington think tank and vocal critic of any government efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
"Pierrehumbert says he became concerned when a colleague, confused by Seitz's affiliations, called to ask whether the academy had indeed taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. The call moved Pierrehumbert to post an email harshly criticizing the mailing to several scientific mailing lists. He was not the only scientist angered by the faux reprint. 'We've gotten several hundred calls from scientists asking what we are going to do about this,' reports Darren Goetz of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in Boston, an advocacy group that last year signed up 1558 scientists in urging the federal government to take action on global warming. Officials at the Sierra Club and the NAS say they, too, have gotten a flurry of complaints. Researchers are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them,' says atmospheric chemist F. Sherwood Rowland, NAS foreign secretary.
"Robinson admits it is no coincidence that the article, which he designed on his computer, looks like one published by the academy. 'I used the
Proceedings as a model.' he says, 'but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal.' He says he plans to submit a version shortly to a peer-reviewed journal."Robinson says he didn't want to wait for formal publication of his article, for fear that the Senate might vote on the Kyoto treaty before he could distribute his petition. The goal, he says, is to counter the perception created by the UCS petition and other statements that there is a scientific consensus in favor of the Kyoto treaty. 'Scientists who have spoken out [against the treaty] keep getting marginalized as nuts. I want to demonstrate that there is no consensus.' he says. Critics are attacking his mailing's style, he believes, to sidestep a debate on its scientific substance.
"Robinson says his petition has gathered 15,000 signatures. But Pierrehumbert and others say that Robinson's views on climate change are suspect, because he has never published research in the field.'' The Malakoff
Science article also includes a picture of the first page of our 8-page article. The photo clearly shows no journal name, no submission date, no submitting scientist (required by the Proceedings), and "January 1998'' printed in a format never used by a journal. The article is also twice as long as permitted in the Proceedings (in which I have published several papers) and has other textual and format differences that I introduced to make it easier to read. It actually never occurred to me that this format complaint would be made - probably because I actually expected more. Even while not agreeing with them, I could defend the enviros' claims far more effectively than they have.We have received more than 500 requests from scientists for a literature reference to this article - most of them friendly scientists who want to reference it in their own writings. There have, indeed, been a few who have mistaken it for a journal reprint - from several different journals that have widely varied formats.
An appropriate version of this article has been submitted for publication. The journal reference will be sent to all petition signers after it is published. Until then, the journal name is confidential.
It is remarkable that virtually none of the people leveling attacks against our petition project attempt to discuss science. With the enviros apparently unable to attack our science and with enemies like the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Sierra Club, and Sherwood Rowland, we must be doing a lot that's right. Rowland, of course, is one of the "Ozone Three'' - the antics of whom in promoting and profiting from the unnecessary ban of CFCs are an embarrassment to the field of chemistry. The UCS and Sierra Club, whatever the merits of those who worked under those names in the past, have become shallow organizations that are obviously in very poor hands.
Other than complaints from these sources, our only other direct link to the opposition has been through the 1.4% of negative replies we receive to the petition. For every 100 scientists who sign the petition, we receive, on average, 1.4 negative responses. Of the approximately 200 negative comments received in the first six weeks, about 90% consisted solely of profanity scrawled across the petition card, usually with the name of the writer removed. The other 10% included an occasional reasoned comment - usually based on incorrect information.
Global warmer support within the scientific community is turning out to be much weaker than we had previously thought - even though, through clever use of the press and false representations about their "consensus,'' they have been winning the public debate.
If victory in the global warming wars goes to the warmers - a loss that would ultimately condemn vast numbers of the world's people to misery and death as technology is withdrawn, it will not be a win by the warmers - it will be a loss by real scientists and technologists. Our most dangerous enemies are not the pathetic "scientists'' at the UCS and Sierra Club. We have in fact other, more effective opposition.
First, there are unprincipled people in business who are attempting to profit from the global warming mania. Among these is, for example, the nuclear power industry, which has been promoting global warming because nuclear power does not produce carbon dioxide. Second, there are individuals in the press and politicians and bureaucrats who perceive ways in which the global warming mania can be utilized to promote themselves and their agendas. Third, there are those who actually oppose the mania - but do so in a lukewarm way calculated to serve their own interests. If, while pursuing their own self-interests, such people become widely quoted spokesmen - but speak in ineffectual, half-hearted ways, they prevent better spokesmen from being heard.
I am more concerned about people supposedly on our side of this issue who have been trying to minimize and downplay the more outspoken critics of global warming than about the enviros themselves. We are hopeful that the signatures on this petition will help to overcome this problem, too. The petition states:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.'' During the first six weeks, 16,900 people signed this petition. These included more than 15,000 basic scientists and applied scientists (mostly engineers), two-thirds with advanced degrees.
Initial signers include approximately 2,100 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, and environmental scientists who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Initial signers also include approximately 4,400 scientists whose fields of specialization make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
Approximately 1,800 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
The costs of the petition have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.
This project is titled "Petition Project'' and uses a mailing address of its own because we desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved - without implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions.
Today, we received a copy of the Union Of Concerned Scientist's April 17 press release against the petition. Listing offices in Washing-ton, Cambridge, and Berkeley, the UCS release contains numerous factual errors and falsehoods of omission. It is, however, interesting in that it is the enviros who are reacting. Up until now, the enviros have been acting and everyone else has been reacting. It is encouraging to see these roles reversed.
We do not expect to see immediate widespread news coverage of the petition or any sudden change in public attitude. What we expect is that the news of this directly expressed opinion by more than 15,000 scientists (the number will probably grow more slowly now - unless we find enough money for extensive new mailings, in which case the number of signatures could easily be raised to 50,000) will gradually erode the enviros' credibility. This is the reason that they are attacking us - attacks that only raise awareness of the petition, increase its effectiveness, and likely lead to some additional signatures.
While I was writing the previous paragraph, a hostile reporter from
The New York Times called. He refused to talk about science - only format. He also brought news that the National Academy of Sciences has issued a statement about our project. Apparently, Sherwood Row-land convinced a majority on the governing council to put out a statement that the petition project is not an NAS activity. No one thought that it was an NAS activity, but Rowland thinks he can get some negative political mileage out of this disclaimer.The enviros must smear the project. They are being drowned in the signatures of scientists who oppose the global warming mania. Without their perceived consensus, years of enviro preparations and many billions of dollars in propaganda designed to seize control of the world's energy supplies and turn down the flow of energy to industry, technology, and individuals may be lost.
It must be understood that
Access to Energy and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine are not going to stop the global warming bandwagon. If it is stopped, the individual and institutional infrastructure of opposition to global warming hysteria that has arisen throughout America will stop it. We have been fortunate to be able to do one thing for this opposition - to lift the burden of implied scientific consensus and to provide a potent political weapon in this list of signatures. The readers of Access to Energy and five months of very hard work made this possible. We are now beginning to be brutally smeared by the enviros. Good! This shows that we have definitely hurt them.
|
|
Vol. 25, No. 8
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 25, No. 8 Date: April 01, 1998 03:52 PM Title: The "Consensus" is Dead
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|