Still More Pro-Global Warming Advocacy

Thanks to Roger Pielke, Sr., I learned that the NCSE added "defending" climate science to its mission in January which previously was limited to defending evolution. Personally, I don't know why anyone needs to "defend" evolution, it is a scientific fact. Climate science, on the other hand, is still very much a young science with a great deal in dispute.

Why do I have a problem with these people? Let me count the ways...

Take a look at their list of officers. Not a single one has any background in atmospheric or climate science whatsoever, yet they claim to offer "expert advice" on climate science. They even offer some of these people as speakers on the subject.

But, they give the game away when you drill down into their website:

NCSE — in common with a number of scholarly and journalistic observers of the social controversies surrounding climate change — opts to use the terms “climate changer deniers” and “climate change denial”

Finally, consider this,
"Undermine climate change indoctrination education?" "Petitions" are not the tools of people interested in science, they are tools of political advocacy.

Finally, they list a giant in the field of applied atmospheric science and aviation engineering, Paul MacCready, as a "supporter" of theirs as of December 11, 2011. Paul passed away in 2007!!

I knew Paul. We were on the UCLA Department of Atmospheric Science Advisory Board for a number of years. While Paul was a strong environmentalist, I never saw any evidence that he bought into catastrophic global warming. While it may be possible his position changed at the end of his life (I have no evidence of that, just conceding the possibility; I had not talked to him the last couple of years before his death), I'm absolutely certain Paul would not have wanted people called "deniers."

As unbiased conveyers of climate change information, I'd give the NCSE an F.


  1. It's finally starting to click into place for me. In a previous post, you point out that Ford, GM, and Chrysler are your professional clients. You've already stated that you're a political conservative (as if there was a question), so your push to debunk the views of the vast majority of climate scientists dovetails nicely with your ability to appease your corporate sponsors and a conservative agenda of deregulation.

    Do you have any business dealings with oil or natural gas companies? Maybe we can also get to the bottom of your anti-wind-power posts now too!

  2. Sorry to disappoint you, but we have a number of utilities and companies that use wind power as clients. If it works for them, it is fine with me. I object to using taxpayer dollars to subsidize it.

    I never had a conversation - not one word - about global warming with any of my auto clients (which include many foreign manufacturers as well as the domestic side). All of the companies that I know of that produce hybrid autos are clients of ours. I'm all in favor of energy conservation and good gas mileage.

    In the spirit of journalistic ethics, I disclose what any readers might perceive to be conflicts of interest. I also disclosed my conservative political beliefs (which almost no newspaper or TV news reporter does). I disclose them so each reader can make up his/her own mind.

    That stated, what, exactly does your comment have to do with the SCIENCE in my posting? You may not like the fact that the earth has stopped warming but it is now an undeniable fact.

    You know, a reasonable person would be pleased with the news that an immediate global warming crisis doesn't exist. Why are you so glum? Why are you so disappointed?

  3. I'm not disappointed - I just don't know that you can actually be trusted to tell the truth at this point. And it's great that you've disclosed your conflicts of interest and your political beliefs, but does that mean that we need to accept that they don't influence your beliefs and the data you choose to find acceptable? That's not how that works.

    I also never suggested that you said anything about anything to your auto clients--that's not the point at all. But you use this blog as a platform to mock wind power, to belittle the green movement, and to deny that humans are affecting the planet's climate. All while you take money from the auto industry. You won't have to sharpen your pencil too many times while you connect those dots.

    You're trying to play it both ways here, and as far as I'm concerned, anything you say about the climate from here on is tainted. This is a fantastic site when you're tracking storms and doing real-time coverage--it's the reason I still keep the site in my feeds. But when you start in on Climategate and Al Gore, you sound like a garden-variety Fox News talking head.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hilary's Forecast Path Shifts West; Updated 9:20am PDT

Dangerous Travel Conditions - People Reportedly Stranded

The East Coast Severe Weather Threat is Over