Bishop Hill Doctors' letter
Feb 18, 2012 Climate: fakegate Commenters have been drawing attention to a public letter written by healthcare professionals and climate scientists, which called on the Heartland Institute to reveal all its funding. This was cited in a Guardian article, which was later amended to show that the letter had been removed.
This appears to be it, here. In fact it looks as if the document just moved to a different URL, although I've sent it to Webcite just in case.
What motivates the Heartland Institute? As climate scientists and health professionals, we view the systematic sowing of unjustified doubt about climate science as confusing at best, and inhumane at worst.
...
Given the disproportionate influence given to climate sceptics by the media, it is in the public, national, and global interest for all funding behind their activities to be revealed. This will help people to make up their own minds about the truth of the climate change threat, so that action can be planned on the basis of evidence rather than confusion.
Signatories include many familiar names including:
- Chris Rapley, who was also on the disappearing Science Media Centre press release
- Jim Hansen
- Professor Sir Andy Haines (he of the completely doolally "carbon costs $1000 per tonne" claim).
Reader Comments (48)
As Ive said many times before, even the most intelligent people can be as thick as two planks.
Regards
Mailman
Mailman:
If I were paid lots and lots of money and got lots of media attention and lots of accolades for doing nothing of any use to mankind, I could say all sorts of nonsense and appear to be as thick as two short ones.
To start with will somebody from their side of the argument please define what they mean by "disproportionate influence"? Even now the media in general appear to give as little air-time as possible to anything other than the "orthodox" view, the BBC especially giving considerable airing on a regular (almost obligatory) basis to some of the more outlandish claims.
Even if this influence is disproportionate it the idea that it is in the public, national, and global interest (don't over-state your case, guys, whatever you do) for all funding behind their activities to be revealed is a non sequitur as is the idea that knowing who funds sceptics will help people make up their minds.
I could go on to mention the somewhat illterate idea that the media "give influence" to anyone or to comment on the general semantic quality of the quote which looks as if it had been written by a computer or maybe a not very well-educated 13-year-old but perhaps I'd better not.
Don't forget that by all accounts there was a hurried first draft of this flaccid screed published to the web. I wonder if anyone has taken a snapshot of the original version that was published on Friday?
If not we can at least thank Suzanne Goldenberg for quoting from it in her article. The original clearly had a more forthright tone.
My emphasis above.
I wonder how many other differences there were. But yet again the honesty and forthrightness of these moral giants means we are left guessing.
However I think this still remains a clear rebuttal to those claiming that the fake document has no bearing on the underlying facts if we see here evidence that if you withdraw that document it attenuates the level of self righteous foaming at the mouth ;)
It is no surprise that EVERYBODY wants to come out and dance about. There is something in this for all!
Medics are not scientists.
The regurgitation of unsubstantiated (and often wrong) statements merely show their very limited abilities.
Mailman:
True. I also think that there are few people more gullible than people who are experts in their own field, especially when presented with barely plausible nonsense from just outside their field.
We have seen, time after time, that many experts in other scientific fields are completely uncritical about climate "science" when they plainly haven't even stooped to examine the subject for a second. In their profound ignorance, they then have the gall to hysterically attack sceptics who actually have looked at the evidence in detail.
It goes onto say
The "first do no harm" principle can cut both ways. When proscribing high-risk and/or painful treatments then a medical professional must have a reasonable expectation that the patient will be better off. If a medical professional does not weigh up the risks then they fail in their duty of care. In the UK, if a GP used the same level of care towards diagnosis and proscribing as the worst excesses of the ClimateGate emails, then they would be struck off.
As climate scientists and health professionals, we view the systematic sowing of unjustified doubt about climate science as confusing at best, and inhumane at worst.
If you or one of your loved ones were suffering from a mysterious illness would you trust one of those quacks to diagnose it correctly and prescribe the right treatment?
Leopard
At least one more change. The original version quoted by Goldenberg had:
"so that action can be planned in the light of reality rather than the murky shadows of secretly funded disinformation."
Rather than:
"so that action can be planned on the basis of evidence rather than confusion."
Isn't it interesting how quickly the consensus advocate sites pulled together a consistent message about the Heartland release, had letters with prominent signatures, etc. And to release the Heartland leak on Vanlentines day, what a touch. A PR genius could not have imagined so much coninsidence.
This really s sad. I almost spit my coffee at "the disproportionate" attention the press gives to skeptics. Again just like all warmer propaganda. Fake but accurate
All of these signatories just a day after the infamous leak? Talk about Team coordination. They had that one all lined up and ready to go. I'm sure Mann's recent offensive was coordinated with this, too. This is how you know the Warmists have nothing, when they invest so much in attacking strawmen. It's not like their scientific case was ever going to get stronger though, was it?
Sean
I don't usually do conspiracy theories, but I've been thinking along the same lines. Perhaps it's more collusion than conspiracy.
On second thoughts, this lot couldn't organise a conspiracy in a Masonic Lodge.
I don't notice much about the lack of BIG-OIL funding.
I didn't notice anything about the swine-flu scare and the millions that went into the coffers of the companies that gained so much from all the vaccinations we didn't need.
I didn't hear much about the Alderhay doctors who thought it was fine to hold back organs from dead children "just in case".
In short, why should we listen to quacks?
Dreadnought
Yeah I missed that. Geez, these guys obviously had a hurried rewrite and thought it was worth another go - I think they should've kept schtum.
The Alarmists love their medical metaphors well I think I'd like to try one too -
If you were ill what kind of doctor do you want to treat you?
a) Someone measured, reasoning, who takes their time and shows honest dealings
or
b) Someone who goes off half cocked at the first idea they have, and then tries to cover up their tracks when it all goes wrong.
If I was health professional I'd care if 600 people died because of the cold over the last month.
I'd care that hundreds of old people are dying of hypothermia in the UK because of fuel poverty.
If I was a cruel heartless moron, I'd have signed this letter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100232/Frozen-death-fuel-bills-soar-Hypothermia-cases-elderly-double-years.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
"Given the disproportionate influence given to climate sceptics by the media"
Pitiful.
Roy
Generally speaking, yes. Because they have spent seven years training and whether they turn out to be right or not, they're our best chance.On the other hand, as artwest points out, people tend to be remarkably gullible when it comes to fields other than their own particular speciality but in the broad discipline in which they operate.
I don't have a problem with doctors or anyone else coming to a different conclusion to me about global warming. What I do find annoying is the fact that so many of them make pronouncements or put their names to letters like these when it's quite evident that they have spent nowhere as much time as me (or the majority of contributors on this site I would suggest) actually coming to a reasoned conclusion, wrong though it might turn out to be.
Pavlov would just love some of these guys!
How can qualified medics sink to infantile stuff like this. Worse than 'show you mine if you show me yours.'
I think it should be noted that the first draft began with "The Climate and Health Council release the following in response to Heartland Institute document leaks." which has now been removed.
This is presently in evidence by looking at the author's member page at the Climate and Health website and reading the Latest Activity section.
Leopard
Purely as a piece of rhetoric, I preferred the first version. Imagine Neil Kinnoch reading it out loud:
"the murky shadows of secretly funded (bang lectern, raise voice) OF SECRETLY FUNDED disinformation."
Relatively few medics have a scientific background or training. In fact most pre-med training is aimed boosting students memory ability to provide 'diagnoses', i.e. recognizing a particular set of symptoms and matching them up with a currently approved treatment, and if they can't come up with a match, they usually rely on laboratory workers to put them back on track. They also tend to have a 'do as I tell, not do as I do attitude'. The causal link between lung cancer and smoking came mainly from Doll and Peto's doctor's survey, as did most of the current knowledge of alcohol abuse and liver disease.
@ Mike Jackson
"... they [doctors] have spent seven years training and whether they turn out to be right or not, they're our best chance."
I certainly agree that we should listen carefully to doctors when faced with a serious illness, but we should not accept what they say uncritically. I have known a number of cases where faulty diagnoses were made of patients who had serious diseases. In two cases my suspicion that the people affected had cancer (a completely different type of cancer in each case) proved to be right and the initial diagnosis by the doctors involved turned out to be wrong. In both cases, as a consequence of the doctors' mistakes, there was a delay of over a year in getting the correct treatment. In one case it was not too late. In the other case the patient might have died anyway, but I will never know.
A good doctor should not expect his/her opinions to be accepted without question, even when they are talking about subjects on which they are experts. Therefore they should certainly expect to be challenged when they pontificate about subjects on which they are not experts.
It looks like everyone is writing to the Guardian to complain about Heartland.
this from climate scientists Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Ray Bradley, Jonathan Overpeck, Ben Santer, Gavin Schmidt and David Karoly, referred to by Richard Littlemore of Desmogblog as" a relative who's who of climate science excellence."
"As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organization’s internal documents earlier this week. However, we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science and to undermine the teaching of well-established climate science in the classroom."
Yes, health professionals.
Next time I get a checkup I'll ask that my prostate exam include a full report on any missing heat or methane buildups.
This whole episode just keeps getting better. When will Desmond Tutu chime in?
When I read the bold bits on a WUWT post, I just couldn't believe it. Sure, this had to be a denialist lie or a fake quote invented to make AAAS look bad.
Alas, the reality is stranger than fiction. AAAS did really say that.
To know climate science is to know madness.
These folks and Mann et al. are terrified their climate ca$h is going to disappear.
Hooray!
I don't assume that medical doctors do or do not have any particular credibility in discussing these matters, but in any case this "Climate and Health Council" appears to contain plenty of non-physicians. It would seem to be yet another advocacy organization masquerading rather badly as a professional association.
This is a reprise of the editors of the Lancet and BMJ letters to the Graundian recently demanding that the Global Warming Policy Foundation (another minnow in terms of funding) disclose its donors.
It was discussed recently on a thread here. Perhaps the Bish could dig it up.
Seems to be a recurring theme. Hmm.
I forgot to mention in my post above that in their previous letter, part of the reason they demanded that the privately funded GWPF should disclose their donors is that 'denying' CAGW was like denying the link between HIV and AIDS, or smoking and lung cancer. Perhaps they got a bit of blowback on that, as I notice their language is more temperate on this occasion.
This is in response to the "Doctor's letter. I plagiarized unashamedly to make a point.
Statement from climate skeptics
Call to reveal ALL data behind climate science. (We know where the funding comes from.)
What motivates climate Scientists? As skeptics, we view the systematic sowing of unjustified panic about climate science as confusing at best, and inhumane at worst. The Hippocratic Oath, the values of which generations of health professionals have adhered to, declares ‘first, do no harm’. We declare, "climate change over-statement is the biggest global health threat of the twenty-first century". We have a duty to protect people from disease, starvation, exposure, and want. Biomedical treatment is just one form of healthcare. Public health professionals study relationships between climate change, sustainability, human health, and physiology. Scientific evidence demonstrates that sustainable development can bring with it health benefits, making it a win-win scenario. If we drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in just a few years to avert a supposed dangerous climate change we will throw the world into a new economic Dark Age. Given the disproportionate influence given to climate scientists by the media, it is in the public, national, and global interest for all communication behind their activities to be revealed, as well as all data and computer codes on which their conclusions are based. This will help people to make up their own minds about the truth of the climate change threat, so that action can be planned on the basis of evidence rather than confusion. This is all we ask.
Signed:
Ed Caryl
Care to sign on?
sHx,
This is very much in line with the idea of postnormal science which had some discussion on WUWT a couple of years back, and which in my opinion amounts to the notion that the trappings of science should be used to lend authority to political agendas by "illustrating scenarios".
Firstly this is likely to impede an honest search for reliable knowledge, especially when the results don't fit in with the scenarios that are required to be illustrated and the political agenda.
Secondly, if you accept that it's OK to use the trappings of science in this way to advance a cause of which you happen to approve, you can't very well object when the same is done to bamboozle people into support for an agenda which you don't approve of, say a programme of racial eugenics.
Patient: Doctor, I've got a temperature.
Doctor: I already know that. It's caused by Global Warming
Patient: Aren't you going to measure my temperature?
Doctor: No - I use the weather station at the airport - it measures global temperatures to 5 decimal places.
Patient: What is the cure?
Doctor: You need to scrap your family car and get a brand-new Toyota Prius.
Patient: Will that work?
Doctor: I have no idea but we've all got to do something. Now if you'll excuse me I haven't got any more time for patients today because I'm going to an important conference on global everything.
As climate scientists and health professionals, we view the systematic sowing of unjustified doubt about climate science as confusing at best, and inhumane at worst.
But of course there's nothing confusing or inhumane about systematic sowing of unjustified certainty.
Given the disproportionate influence given to climate sceptics by the media
Ah, right, since close to 100% of the tax money in climate science goes to promoting CAGW theory, the media should follow suit, or the government's ideological objectives may fail.
I am not a scientist, although I have a Bachelor of Economics and Commerce degree. What stuns me is the statement by the so-called medics. Here are the reasons that I am so stunned:
1. the promotion of abortion on demand by doctors is a direct contravention of the Hippocratic Oath, especially that bit about "do no harm". There are very rare cases where such a procedure is necessary, where a woman's health is endangered. Once such rare occasion is an ectopic pregnancy, where the woman is in real danger.
2. the real job for medics is to diagnose patients with their medical conditions. Passing off a patient because she might have had a drug addiction is no excuse. In this particular case the patient died within 6 weeks of when the bone cancer was finally diagnosed. Being told to go home and drink water was not helpful.... (yes this is a real case, and it was my sister).
3. sending pregnant women home when the baby is due, not premature, and when the waters have broken, will lead to the death of the baby, especially when the umbilical cord is wrapped around the baby's neck. Telling the mother when she presents again that the baby's heartbeat is weak and then allowed to die in the womb is not acceptable. (yes it happened to one of my nieces and she lost her first son because he was allowed to die in the womb - an emergency caesarian operation should have been performed). Also, this nearly happened to me but the professor interfered in the proceedings and I gave birth.
4. They need to start listening to their patients describing symptoms instead of dismissing what they are saying.... there is a difference between RA and Fibromyalgia.....
5. The administration of RU486 to women who are pregnant has caused unnecessary deaths, but the medical profession that advocates abortion is silent about those deaths.
6. Some of the diseases that have turned up in reports are not in epidemic proportions, neither is it likely to be in those proportions again unless people begin to travel more often to exotic places such as Bali.... and even then they have to live in an area where the type of mosquito would become a carrier thrives. Example: Dengue Fever and Malaria. The mosquito must first bite a victim that is a carrier for either disease. These diseases are contained via medications such as Plaquenil and others that are very effective, and they are controlled by ensuring that the mosquitoes are not breeding in stagnant water. Perhaps these medics could give up their time and go to Africa where malaria is still rife, and provide the people with the necessary medications that will help to bring the disease under control. It is a far better solution than the hand wringing from this mob.
7. These medics need to be honest about the possible links between miscarriage and breast cancer. There have been studies that have shown the link but these are being stifled.
8. These medics might want to stop using such poor indicators as the BMI. This useless scale needs to be scrapped since it does not take into account the bone structure of a person. These medics should return to other forms of knowledge to determine if someone could end up with diabetes, as an example - family history is actually more important than BMI, and yes thin people have attacks, get diabetes and suffer from high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc. etc.
These days there are many useless reports being churned that seem to indicate that people are drawing conclusions not based upon the evidence but upon their own belief system, or convictions and of course to meet the funding demands of some institution that enabled the attainment of a higher degree.
When are these antipodean doctors and other gullible fools going to realise that they have been had?
Dear Bish
I've only just noticed this thread but shortly before I posted the following comment to Leo Hickman's thread on CiF.
"Very interesting.
The Guardian reports a letter from "more than 30 leading health professionals and scientists from the US, Britain, Australia and New Zealand" which it quotes as saying
This was posted at
http://www.climateandhealth.org/magazine/read/climate-scientists-and-health-professionals-call-to-reveal-all-funding-behing-climate-sceptics_178.html
However, it appears to have been reposted at
http://www.climateandhealth.org/members/profile/14/blog-view/blog_179.htm
but with very different wording
However, there is no acknowledgement that the letter was previously withdrawn or that changes have been made. I think that it is worth asking, too, if each of the signataries has agreed that the changes can be made, that they are willing for their signature to be appended to the amended version, and that the change should be unacknowledged.
This means that the Guardian is now claiming that these people are making a particular claim, without the paper noting that a substantial part of this claim has been withdrawn. Does this lay the Guardian open to an action for libel? That would be for judge and jury to decide but I would say that there is at least a possibility.
The second part of the letter as quoted by the Guardian reads:
whilst the amended version states
You've been hung out to dry."
There may be some value in regarding climate alarm as spreading like a virus in vulnerable populations. The CO2-Scare virus perhaps?
Can we innoculate the young against it, for example. Rough thoughts on this here: http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2012/02/innoculation-against-co2-scare-virus-in.html
Few Doctors take the Hippocratic oath. I know I did not.
Doctors are like every other group of people, some will be politically motivated, some will be thick.
These nods all appear to be either from Oz or NZ and from the public health side of things. That tells you it's a put up job.
The authority of medicine is one step from tyranny.
They are completly correct. Climate Skeptics do get a disproproate amount of Media attention. Since 99% of the Media is warmist, it doesn't even fit their bogus 97% claim. Skepticism needs to be around 60% for it be a proporsionate amount.
I've got a bit of sore throat at the moment, and I'm worried that it might be caused by breathing out too much carbon dioxide. I wonder if one of those climate scientists would be kind enough to give me some medical advice.
As usual, the funding of sceptics is seen as an issue, but never that of alarmists. That government-funded scientists produce work that supports a massive boosting of the role of government, and that they spend orders of magnitude more money than anyone else, just doesn't merit comment.
Chris Rapley has "previous". When he became Director of British Antarctic Survey (BAS) in 1998, he totally reorganised the research to concentrate on "Climate Change".
Those who didn't toe the line were removed (most scientists there were on short term contracts).
I worked with BAS (fortunately not for, with) and watched it all happening, the complete destruction of established research groups.
Of course, this reorganisation was "sucessful" as more money flowed in to "prove" climate change.
Don...was that how blinkered folk such as Connolley got in?
Having read all the replies so far, isn't they one sceptic who thinks transparent funding, regardless of position taken, is a good idea?
Diogenes, quite possible.