Do you think it's wise for Climate scientists to campaign against Global Warming deniers? Especially now that?

Absolutely, this is great news.

If climate scientists are right - and there's no reason to believe they're not - continuing to ignore the threat of global warming could very well lead to the end of society as we know it. That's no exaggeration.

Not only do most Republicans want to ignore climate science, they are actively engaged in a campaign to attack it. They want to slander climate scientists so that they can delay action in addressing global warming for as long as possible. All they care about is their own political gain, and making the businesses (like oil companies) who fund their political campaigns happy so they keep the money flowing.

Climate scientists have been on the defensive for too long. As Professor Mandia put it in the article,

"We are taking the fight to them because we are … tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed."

At this point climate scientists have no option other than to bring the truth forward more aggressively. They have to get onto the offensive, or everyone will continue to ignore and attack them. This isn't a game, this is the very future of humanity (and all other species on the planet) at stake.

There's no way this can backfire. What are we going to do, ignore and insult climate scientists? We're already doing that. We're already refusing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We can't be doing any worse than we already are.

I read the same article in my paper San Diego Union.

One thing stood out to me

"This group feels strongly that science and politics can't be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists," said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York.

I was not so surprised by the message as much as the messenger. They way it cross referenced old news was odd. How did a professor from a community college in New York get quoted in a newspaper on the west coast?

I know nothing about him and he might be a cutting edge researcher with years of fine science behind him. However when I see a CC professor being quoted as source referencing a speech from a well known researcher from a speech from last May as if it was him and he said it yesterday I must question the journalistic integrity of the article.

While the legitimate source uses the term skeptic the questionable source uses denialists. This is an ill advised term to try to open dialogue with. With the professors demeaning tone and use of the word fight does not bode well for winning support. Insulting your opposition is never a good start to find common ground and agreement.

There has to be a better way to get this message across.

The message is valid but it comes wrapped in over sensationalized disingenuous journalism which is easy to attack.

Truth, by itself, is naked and exposed to all the elements. It doesn't last too long. Science, by itself, is curious [and thus rather easily distractable], cautious, and willing to entertain doubts and accept that a certain amount of error inevitably exists in out knowledge of many "big" things. Debaters don't operate that way, and can thus eat many scientists for lunch and want more. Science isn't a matter of debate; it's a matter of data. Interpretation is a matter of debate. But bits of data cannot be interpreted in isolation, they need to be joined in a larger structure to give them meaning.

Your approaches are totally wrong in many ways. You need showmen and stage managers. You need middlemen, people who can accurately translate - both ways! - between scientists and that disparate group of citizens known as "the general public". Let me try an example.

We know that climatologically, the start of spring has advanced about 2 weeks in the Northern Hemisphere since about 1900, I believe. We know that 30 years of a warming trend has caused migrations of plants and animals. Well, who is going to know that up close and personal, and can tell the story and be believed? The older small farmers and farm workers, the long-time gardeners, the people who have sold seed for decades, the forest rangers, and avid older outdoorsmen and women who have noticed the changes. Get them to tell their stories. People's grandparents, and the people who feed us, and the people who won gardening events for decades - these people can be far more convincing, each telling a tiny piece of the story of climate change, only for their immediate area. Put all these people on a map, and track the total changes from all the stories.

Use the records from the orchards and wineries about flowering dates. Get kids to track budding times and such as class/school projects. "Mom, the 5th grade has been tracking this for 10 years now. The trees and gardens are all marked, we film everything, and we graph the results. You can see it's 2 days earlier now than it was when Dan's class started it; when's he gonna be home from college?"

Those are tough arguments to beat, and to lie about. You gotta give 'em a show, and one that is scrupulously honest and accurate. But pick your principals for maximum effect on the target audiences. That is obviously what the deniers are doing. Their time-worn lies are meant to reinforce their control of groups already on their side. Logic has already been shown to fail in penetrating the wall of lies the deniers have put up around global warming. And we should go back to the name AGW, with emphasis on the "A" and on the concept of "global" as opposed to "local". These name changes lately have not made the realist side look good to that mythical beast, the general public.

There is no "general" public. There are only thousands of [relatively] little groups of people around the world, each with their own specific concerns. You better tailor your message to each specific group you want to reach, and expect the deniers to put up a fight every time. But you have to, because that's what the deniers do. They tailor their messages, and they fight for the hearts and minds of every group they think important. You cannot address the general public, only 6-7 billion specific individuals. Techniques are known. Learn and apply the appropriate ones. [And make sure one of the kids has a puppy ;-) ]

Yes. Regardless of the party in control, people should not stop campaigning for issues that are important to them. The same applies to climate scientists. The threats from the GOP to begin these "investigations" into the science are going to turn out to be one of two things:

- Hollow. The main focus of the Republicans now should be the economy and health care - these issues at the very least are ones that they must address if they want to be viewed with any sort of seriousness by the American public. Public perception of each party is very low (this was not a pro-Republican election as much as an anti-incumbent one), and the GOP has made big promises to address the economic situation we're in and attempt to repeal the new health care law.

- Counterproductive to their cause. Hopefully lessons would be learned from how Climategate turned out, with six independent investigations absolving those involved of fraud. It demonstrated perfectly how deniers are willing to take private remarks out of context and blow an issue out of proportion before it was even out of its wrapper. These proposed investigations will waste taxpayers' dollars to conclude what has already been the accepted conclusion in the scientific arena for decades.

What are the Republicans going to do anyways? We just discussed the futility of the investigations they proposed - cut funding? Doesn't work like that, Congress does not fund science. Pass a law to disrupt the EPA's power to regulate CO2? Not by the time they start, and not with merely control of one house.

There is no real disincentive for climate scientists to stop campaigning against falsities put forth by the deniers. There is if anything a very real incentive TO campaign considering how the GOP is perhaps the largest political party in the world that rejects AGW so comprehensively and vehemently. Stagnation is all one could expect if no attempt is made to educate them and bring the issue out in full.

One of the problems of 'proving' climate change in general is the math. The data is reduced to mathematical formulas that most people don't understand. What's not understood is often rejected, particularly when there's all those right wing radio dummies telling people that the data should be rejected because scientists are all a bunch of commies looking for 'grants'. I'm sure that the folks who are attempting to get out the facts will be bombarded with insults, false accusations, character assassination and the jeers of cheesy right wing politicians of the GOP/Teabag/Fox 'News' persuasion. Good luck to these guys... they're up against some big competition from the Oil and Coal Mafias. Don't be surprised if this Mr. John Abraham is publicly accused of being a cross dresser, an army deserter, a 'far left liberal', an atheist and being a 'Jewish' operative for the Kosher Nostra. That's how these guys roll.

I think it is necessary for scientist to stick up for science. The Republicans have taken the House of Representatives, which means their Committee chair gets to set the agenda of his/her Committee. Rep. Issa of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has promised to hold hearings on climate science. The House Energy Committee head is undetermined at present but likely to also hold an investigation.

These hearings will attempt to discredit climate science and scientists. They will drag in some of the highly visible scientists and rake them over the coals. Not ever pleasant to have to defend yourself, even when you know you have done nothing wrong. Then the Committee head will promote some of the prominent climate deniers -- one is already 'advertising' his viewpoints -- who will say what the Chair wants. I don't honestly know if the Chairs believe that global warming isn't happening and caused by dumping fossil fuel emissions into the air or if they are satisfying the desires of their big contributors from the fossil fuel companies or if they think their constituents want them to do this.

The true science of the climate has been under-publicized in the last year. The responses of climate scientists to phony charges have not been published, even as letters to the editor. Hopefully, a concerted effort will get more of the data out for the public to hear.

I hope biologists who see the big changes as living creatures struggle to adapt will speak out. Spring is coming earlier, fall is coming later. In my state, as just one sorry instance, the maple trees are not as vivid as they were 5 years.

The proposition on the California ballot against doing something about climate was solidly rejected by voters last week. Most people are interested in improving our energy situation by reducing imports of fossil fuels.

Scientists don't need to "campaign". They aren't politicians. They aren't lobbyists.

They perform science, perhaps make some valid recommendations, and allow those in power to interpret as they will.

However, for some groups that wish to become activists, I don't see how it could backfire. Who is more educated in the subject and has more voice in matter? Those who spend their careers involved in the field, or politicians from non-related backgrounds?

The only backfiring we are going to experience is on the Republican party. They can enjoy and celebrate right now, but once the general public finally can face reality and see what is happening and what needs to be done (and it isn't a hard concept to grasp), the Republican party will have a long time trying to gain back the trust of the American people.

Party while you still can, because I guarantee party is going to be short lived.

Edit- I understand, I don't mean to use the word in the strictest sense either. I just think that scientists have an extremely important job to do, and that is to find out what is happening, and what could possibly happen, in regards to global warming. The don't have the responsibility of starting the movement. They will, and do, certainly support it, but the public needs to begin to demand what is right. And what is right is a move away from energy dependence on fossil fuels and towards investment in alternative energy.

It's about time.

Rolling stones gather no moss.

You should never concede to wrong if you are in the right.

Silence is cowardly and must be overcome by speaking out against all evils, this includes lies perpetuated by global warming deniers

http://theyfly.com/WILL_HUMANITY_WAKE_UP.html

It is especially appropriate now that nitwits will have the power of committee chairmanships. It can only backfire if the public is so stupid that it cannot tell the difference between uninformed, biased political opinion and scientific empirical reality.

Republican leaders should be concerned that their strategy of lies, distortion, misrepresentation, and misinformation will backfire on them. An open and objective examination of the evidence is their worst nightmare.

Deniers are mistaken if they think that Inhofe, Rush, and a handful corporate whoring scientists can win a scientific debate against the physical evidence and the expert opinion of thousands of the world’s leading scientists.

======

MIKE L -

I suppose you want to cut funding to the so-called scientists who investigate earthqakes and diseases, also.