I must say that I feel proud of the mainstream media when CBC News picks this up before any of the blogs I read.
A letter to be published in tomorrow’s edition of Science, defending the integrity of climate science and calling for an end to “McCarthy-like threats” to scientists, has been signed by 225 members of the National Academy of Sciences. I guess they weren’t joking around in their correspondence.
Here are some excerpts:
We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular.
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change.
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.
Read the whole letter here, it’s well worth it.
I don’t find this letter particularly surprising, because I’m quite aware of the scientific community’s attitudes toward recent events (RC collectively refers to them as Whatevergate), and I’m sure that many regular readers and commenters won’t be surprised either. However, we need to look at this not as news, but as an example of the communication that scientists are starting to come out with. This is exactly the kind of letter that needs to get out to the public.
What I’m wondering is, why will it be published in Science and not somewhere like the New York Times, a publication that is actually read outside of the scientific community? Anyone who keeps up with Science will know just how solid the theory of anthropogenic climate change is. So why is it being used for public communication?
Whatever the reason, and whatever its effectiveness, I’m pleased. It’s a good first step that we need much more of.
This will be printed and placed in the lobby of my science building in the “Climate in the News” section of our current display: Climate Change: What is the Role of Humans?
Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences
My Global Warming Blog
“Global Warming Fact of the Day” Facebook Group
Thank you for pointing that letter out Kate!
I can hear the skeptics now: “Why did ONLY 225 scientists sign it?”
“I can hear the skeptics now: “Why did ONLY 225 scientists sign it?””
As scruffy dan points out the number of scientists who have signed letters & petitions in support of the consnsus is now in the region of 5000.
I asked to sign the UK statement but was deemed too lowly (though Sir David A refers to me (indirectly) as a “leading scientist” in the preface to a book I contributed to recently :-D).