Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
rallied to defend not just me or a handful of other climate scientists, but the very endeavor of science
itself, which they saw as under attack. Leading scientific figures such as Gerald North, Donald
Kennedy, and many others took action by writing open letters and op-eds, organizing and signing
petitions, and encouraging scientific and professional organizations to take principled stands against
the attacks.
Perhaps the most dramatic move occurred in May 2010, when a group of more than 250
members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel laureates, banded together to
publish an open letter in
Science
.
82
The letter began with a note of concern over the increasingly
hostile attacks against climate science, stating that the group was “deeply disturbed by the recent
escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular.” It went
on to stress that the science of human-caused climate change—like all science—can never be
“certain”; the demand for absolute certainty before taking action is not only illogical, but that “for a
problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our
planet.” The letter blasted the tactics of the climate change denial movement, employing surprisingly
frank language for a consensus document of hundreds of scientists: “We … 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. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and
hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the
threat of global climate change quickly and substantively.”
The open letter could not have been better timed from my perspective; it happened to appear the
very week that Ken Cuccinelli had launched his attack against me and the University of Virginia. It
also roughly coincided in timing with an
ABC Evening News
piece on the harassment of climate
scientists. Meanwhile, Congressman Edwin Markey (D-MA) had just held two hearings of the House
Subcommittee on Climate and Energy focused, in large part, on the harassment and vilification of
climate scientists. It was a convergence of independent events that collectively helped to reshape the
popular narrative at the time. Rather than talking about the irrelevant content of purloined e-mails, or
minor errors in the IPCC reports, the discussion was at least now focused on the McCarthyist attacks
against climate scientists, if still not so much on the dangers of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions.
Our detractors had helped accomplish something that nobody else had yet been able to: shifting the
debate away from climategate and its aftermath. Indeed, this may help to explain why many climate
change deniers were distancing themselves from Cuccinelli's inquisition and, in some cases, even
denouncing it.
83
The Cuccinelli attack in particular seemed to have helped mobilize the scientific community. The
Union of Concerned Scientists, on May 7, 2010, issued a warning that Cuccinelli's “seemingly
unprecedented action could set a dangerous precedent and stymie communication among scientists in
editorial
85
stating that “Given the lack of any evidence of wrongdoing, it's “hard to see Cuccinelli's
subpoena—and similar threats of legal action against climate scientists … as anything more than an
ideologically motivated inquisition that harasses and intimidates climate scientists.”
86
Official denouncements of Cuccinelli's investigation were issued jointly by the American
