You are here

Climategate Reloaded

News Releases

Washington, D.C., March 5, 2010—Prominent climate scientists affiliated with the U.S. National Academies of Science have been planning a public campaign to paper over the damaged reputation of global warming alarmism, according to recently disclosed e-mail messages.  Their scheme would involve officials at the National Academies and other professional associations producing studies to endorse the researchers’ pre-existing assumptions and create confusion about the revelations of the rapidly expanding “Climategate” scandal.      

The e-mails were first reported in a front-page story by Stephen Dinan in the Washington Times today. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has independently obtained copies of the e-mails and has posted them at GlobalWarming.org.

“The response of these alarmist scientists to the Climategate scientific fraud scandal has little to do with their responsibilities as scientists and everything to do with saving their political position.  The e-mails reveal a group of scientists plotting a political strategy to minimize the effects of Climategate in the public debate on global warming,” said Myron Ebell, Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

“Of special interest is the disclosure by Stanford Professor Stephen H. Schneider that he has already sent an e-mail to ‘media, NGOs etc’ that accuses Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) of McCarthyite behavior and asks them to ‘decry this McCarthyite regression, and by name point out what this Senator is doing by a continuing smear campaign,’” said Ebell.  “Apparently, Professor Schneider objects to a report on Climategate that Sen. Inhofe recently released which merely lists 17 of the scientists involved in the scandal.”  

Prof. Paul Falkowski, who kicks off the email exchange, claims the public has “lost faith in science” because scientists “do not speak out to the public.”

“Falkowski’s got it backwards,” said CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis. “The public has lost faith not in science but in scientists whose shrill alarmism and cheerleading for energy rationing schemes exposes them as advocates and partisans.”

“While these people claim to be acting as scientists, they’ve got an embarrassingly clear political agenda,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. “Their plans range from turning the Academies into a ‘transformational agent in America’ to planning a new Academy report that would be ‘factual’ and ‘authoritative’ even though the purpose of its preordained conclusions would be to ‘provide talking points.’” 

 

Selected Excerpts from the National Academies Email Exchange

Paul Falkowski, Feb. 26: “I will accept corporate sponsorship at a 5 to 1 ratio….”

Paul Falkowski, Feb. 26:  “I want the NAS to be a transformational agent in America.”

Robert Paine, Feb. 27: “The beltway’s foolishness about climate change seems especially ironic given the snowless plight of the Vancouver Olympics.”

Paul R. Ehrlich, Feb. 27: “Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules.”

William Jury, Feb. 27: “I am seeing formerly committed public sector leaders backing off from positions aimed at reducing our fossil fuel dependence.”

Steve Carpenter, Feb. 27: “We need a report with the authority of the NAS that summarizes the status and trends of the planet, and the logical consequences of plausible responses.”

Paul Falkowski, Feb. 27: “…but the issue at hand is not integrity of the IPCC—it is making sure that the public is aware of OUR concerns for all of our futures.”

George Woodwell, Feb. 28: “Those who deny the biophysical facts of the world would deny the reality of the law of gravity. The product of such denials is systematic progress destroying this civilization.  If one wants a view of where that process leads, take a quick look at Haiti at the moment.”

George Woodwell, Feb. 28: “Yes, you will blast me for such an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach, but you are wondering how to be effective against an enemy that is very skillfully using our classical reasonableness against us….” 

CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest group that studies the intersection of regulation, risk, and markets.