Jan 28, 2010

Scientists, the IPCC wants you

Nomination to the IPCC process is an invitation for public smears, threats and routine attacks on your credibility -- not by your peers, but by newspaper columnists, bloggers and conspiracy theorists.

Bernard Keane — Politics editor

Bernard Keane

Politics editor

Last week the Federal Department of Climate Change advertised for Australian nominees for “Coordinating Lead Author, Lead Author and Review Editor roles” for the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report:


The Government is seeking nominations from relevant scientists to participate in what the IPCC says is a “demanding” five-year process of establishing the best estimates of the trajectory, impacts and capacity for mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. Quite why Australia’s best climate scientists would bother, though, is a very good question. Nomination to the IPCC process is an invitation for public smears, threats and routine attacks on your credibility, not by your peers, but by newspaper columnists, bloggers and conspiracy theorists – and you receive no assistance or funding for the pleasure. On Tuesday, UNSW Professor Andy Pitman was attacked by News Ltd blogger Andrew Bolt, who suggested Pitman was being less than truthful when he said his IPCC work was undertaken “out of hours, voluntarily for no funding”.  Bolt linked to evidence showing Pitman had been reimbursed for costs incurred as lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”. The only remuneration IPCC scientists get – as a quick check of last week’s ad would have made clear -- is travel costs and living expenses while they are at IPCC meetings.  The IPCC work is on top of their day jobs as academics and researchers. Presumably Bolt and co think scientists should pay their own way for the privilege of undertaking work at the behest of the Australian Government. Pitman is particularly frustrating for climate denialists because of his record of working with IPCC critics like American scientist Roger Pielke, who has accused the IPCC of cherry-picking data and being too focussed on the impact of CO2. As a result of Bolt's attack, a number of his readers sent abusive emails to Pitman.  Some went to an entirely different, and presumably mystified, Andy Pitman. Bolt, to his credit, publicly asked his readers to desist. In all, Pitman received 240 emails, including some threatening ones (one, evidently written from Irony Central, threatened him if he engaged in “personal attacks” on denialists).  It’s not the first time Pitman has received threatening emails from denialists. Pitman, unfortunately, has got off relatively lightly.  Crikey understands at least one climate scientist has received death threats.  It appears to be a pattern among some climate denialists – Ben Cubby described a number of death threats received by climate change activists during the Copenhagen conference. Given the crossover between climate denialism and some quite grotesque conspiracy theories – Christopher Monckton, when not warning of a global Marxist Government or urging the internment of people with HIV, maintains that Jackie Kennedy was responsible for the deaths of 40m people -- death threats from some on the fringe of the movement who take seriously the idea that climate change action is a threat to life and freedom cannot be glibly dismissed as idle attempts to intimidate.  But it is continual personal public attacks and consumption of time that would make volunteering for the IPCC process truly unappealing. Pitman differentiates between genuine sceptics, who are open to being convinced by evidence on climate change, and outright denialists and conspiracy theorists, with whom there is little point in engaging.  “That’s the dilemma about debating and engaging with these people. It’s hard to distinguish between the conspiracy theorists and those with an open mind looking for answers, with whom you really want to engage in debate and hopefully win over,” Pitman told Crikey. Pitman compares the activities of the former to “Denial of Service” attacks.  “There’s a saying about how it takes a second to lie convincingly but it can take days and weeks to show that it’s a lie.  Responding to attacks and questions takes time, and I think many scientists don’t engage because it takes up so much time that they should be devoting to research," says Pitman. "But even if you’ve responded to the same question 20 times before, if you fail to respond once you’re attacked as ‘having no answers.’” Oftentimes scientists don’t even know they’re being smeared and attacked. One denialist blog yesterday ran a series of questions from Monckton to Pitman that the blogger didn't actually bother to send to Pitman.  That didn’t stop blog commenters, most of them anonymous, attacking him for failing in his “duty to respond” or demanding “alarmist frauds like”  Pitman “be dragged out of their offices in straightjackets”. There’s an interested party in this process that appears to be looking on with equanimity: the Federal Government.  Crikey understands that the Department of Climate Change does not provide any information or assistance to IPCC nominees on how to deal with media attention and attacks from denialists (not even the simple half-day “How To Handle the Media” courses that many public servants undertake).  A DCC spokesman this morning said that the Department had no plans to provide media training or even a simple (and free) briefing for IPCC nominees. As for last week’s ad, Pitman said he had decided that, having already undertaken an IPCC role twice, he would be giving the 2010-14 process a miss.  The orchestrated assault on his reputation, though, has made him have second thoughts, and he’s considering nominating again.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

56 thoughts on “Scientists, the IPCC wants you

  1. John Pye

    “Pitman, unfortunately, has got off relatively lightly.” ???

  2. Evan Beaver

    I made the mistake of checking out a post on Bolt’s blog, where one of the commenters had found that job ad.

    They were VERY EXCITED to realise that the job required Top Secret security clearance. This was further evidence of the conspiracy! What are they hiding! I tried pointing out that, well, it’s pretty standard for anyone handling Cabinet documents to be Top Secret vetted. My comment was not published.

  3. Most Peculiar Mama

    Nice strawman Bernard.

    You’re still deathly quiet on the IPCC-endorsed fabrication and publication of glacial melting data.

    More cherries perhaps?

  4. Gary Johnson

    Sooner or later Conspiracy Deniers are going to have to accept it, that what is mostly coined conspiracy “theory” … is actually just a nuant and slight deviation from the facts.

  5. Tom McLoughlin

    Kilimanjaro disappearing, north west passage opening up, Greenland farming, 50 year upward trend in global temperatures, Prof Hansen, NASA, increased ocean acidity, increased rate of ocean rise. Earlier spring thaw in Europe. Snow machines in Australia.

    Bring on the creationist nutcases. They make Pittman et al look like Leonardo Da Vinci by comparison.

  6. Most Peculiar Mama

    Three years ago Pitman and his ‘climate’ cohort Matthew England at UNSW advocated a patently ridiculous 50 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.

    Both apocalyptic doomsayers gravely lamented that “many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heatwaves, drought, floods and storms”.

    Instead – as if Glaciergate wasn’t bad enough – the IPCC has been caught out AGAIN with its 2007 Fourth Assessment report in claiming that global warming was leading to an increase in extreme weather, such as hurricanes and floods.

    The data was simply made up…although later enthusiastically seized on by ‘climate economist’ Sir Nicholas Stern who susbsequently advocated a wholesale transfer of wealth from the First to the Third World as penance for the gross materialistic overindulgences wrought by Western Civilisation.

    Within Pitman’s area of expertise, the IPCC wasted no time in endorsing the dire and non-peer-reviewed assessment (by the ‘climate experts’ at the WWF no less) on the destruction of the Amazon rainforest by catastrophic climate change.

    No such data exists. Zip. Maybe Andy can shed some light here?

    Was Pitman part of the peer-review process that allowed these unsubstantiated and erroneous conclusions to “slip through” in the 2007 report he was a lead author on?

    The IPCC is run by crooks, liars and charlatans…headed by an academically-challenged former railroad engineer who knows bupkis about climate.

    To be a lead author on a new paper from such a moral and ethically bankrupt organisation as the IPCC would be considered career suicide.

    No wonder Pitman has decided to pass this time.

  7. Evan Beaver

    What a load of horse crap Mama.

    You spend lines bagging someone for unsubstantiated claims, yet open with a doozy yourself. What expertise do you posess to profess that a 50 percent reduction in carbon emissions within 40 years is patently ridiculous? You’re a renewable energy and networks engineer then are you? Electrical engineer? Town Planner? Interested nut case?

  8. Most Peculiar Mama

    “…What expertise do you posess to profess that a 50 percent reduction in carbon emissions within 40 years is patently ridiculous?…”

    Show us how it will be done Evan.

    Penny wants 5% by 2020.

    Use that as your starting place.

    BTW, the BRICs are not part of the “reduction” plan.

    Your time starts now.

  9. JamesK

    Oh those poor Rudd approved scientists such as Professor David Karoly and Professor Andy Pitman who will only be smeared by nasty sceptics funded by evil coal.

    Good job Rudd can fund them to the tune of hundreds of thousands and millions of public taxed dollars.

    So I fund people like David Karoly and Andy Pitman who I believe are much more activists than scientists.

    ‘Tuff sh1t ignoramus’ is apparently is apparently the attitude of progressive elitists like Bern-independent-news-can-only-really-be-provided-by-non-commercial media-Keane’s thinkin’.

Leave a comment

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details