AAAS President: ‘Scared to death’ by growing skepticism

“They are actually being effective.” reports:

The president of one of the world’s biggest scientific organizations says the research community is being outgunned by naysayers.

She said she is “scared to death” by trends that show declining public acceptance of global warming and the growing influence of science skeptics, who have plenty of resources to spread their misinformation.

“They are actually being effective,” Nina Federoff, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said Thursday when asked about reports of a new push to undermine the teaching of global warming in U.S. schools…

Read the entire report.

12 thoughts on “AAAS President: ‘Scared to death’ by growing skepticism”

  1. Agreed. A Lysenkoist mandate is the stated goal of Hansen at least, and that’s frightening.

    However, by my reckoning, the ratio is more closely ten thousand to one. We should be specific about such matters lest people think we are drifting into hyperbole..

  2. The science behind evolution is vast an very interesting. The theory had to overcome the fact that the Sun was not old enough to accommodate the gradual process. Lord Kelvin did not know about nuclear fusion when he made his calculation. There was also the problem of regression towards the mean of continuous variates that was overcome by Mendel’s theory of discrete genes. And problems with plasticity (how could the beaks of Darwin’s finches evolve so quickly were accounted by genes that controlled the expression of other genes. The Science is beautiful and deniers of Evolution are fools.

    Climate Warming is not a settle Science. Yes CO2 has heat trapping optical properties, but not enough to without a hypothetical boost by a water vapor feedback. The 15 or so years without record temperature falsify the theory unless there is some explanation of having rapidly increasing levels of CO2 without increasing temperature. Then the calculations of Mr. mcIntyre showing the Hockey Stick coming from problematic data and noise have not been explained. Ms. Federoff seems to be ignorant.

    A lot of Global Changing Science involves speculation about the consequences of global warming. Those studies do not prove that global warming is real when that conclusion is the premise for them.

  3. I am retiring to the Tropics so I am really overjoyed to learn that the global cooling that will be caused by the global warming will moderate this constant “July” weather we have here. A five degree (local) drop in temperatures would be a blessing. We’re moving from Minnesota so you can guess how big a change that is.

  4. What is truly scary is that we are exposing our children to a debate that will not be conclusive for an unknown period. Dressing this up as ‘science education’ is bogus. It’s indoctrination, or at best , competing views of the climate.

    Let the children learn about the formation of stars, the revolution of Earth, the movements of the planet, the basics of chemistry, etc. Leave politics OUT of the classroom!

  5. Oh, buggah, hit to soon.

    This is actually becoming quite scary as the Warmistas have the control of positions of power in the Western world. They do have the power to do immense damage – to folk like us. Higher food and energy prices don’t mean much to rich people – Prince of Wales? Movie Star? Presidential advisor Chu? Million dollar Hanson? – but they create riots in Egypt.

  6. What is scary is that these people are edging to a position adjacent to outlawing skepticism. They are becoming hysterical – the globe isn’t actually, you know, like, warming and everyong realizes this; even their own distorted data show this. It is UNDENIABLE. The propaganda isn’t working, even though their side out-spends the skeptics by millions to one.

  7. She should be scared, as should all these leaders in positions of authority who have been knowingly or ignorantly pushing this great lie. Once enough of the public gets on board they’ll be out for blood and those people will be in the crosshairs (so to speak).

  8. I am scared by such comments while the world is heading towards a Maunder Minimum, with possibly deadly consequences for a significant part of the worlds population. The correlation between solar activity and temperature is higher than anything else in climate science, in same case almost coherence. This will have devastating effects on agriculture around the world but particularly in the US, Europe and China. In Canada agriculture may be wiped out and reduced to trading biber furs as it once was during the Maunder Minimum in the little ice age.

  9. I am an Elected Fellow of the AAAS and have worked in the field of climate change as scientist and manager; I have studied both sides well — and have switched sides — not to a skeptic — but to an informed scientist who has actualy read the “skeptics” books. The playing field has changed as the truth is coming out that the CO2 warming is not real — it was put down more than a 100 years ago, and is being put down now by historical data, modern data, climate models using the theory that do match reality, and by the scare tactics whose consequences have not materilized. Nina needs to read these books and others that describe why the climate is modestly changing — the sun’s effects, amplified by cosmic particles. She should also read my new book EXPOSURE — which is a fictional account of a hypothetical nationally televised debate that will take place in 2012. The scientific background for my fictional account is from scientists who are every bit as good or better than those who claim to be advocates.This debate will eventually have to happen on a national highly visible scale — though the current advocates fear it — because they are losing their ammunition almost daily. See

  10. Everyone wants to be superman and appear to be saving the world. Getting people to recognize the behavior in themselves is highly challenging. Most people do not want to look in the mirror.

  11. Digbat says:
    “….science skeptics, who have plenty of resources to spread their misinformation.”

    Lady, would you please use facts and evidence to substantiate your claims? This oft-repeated liberal lie/myth is not backed up with empirical evidence, where is the data/proof that this is a problem? Same as your science. You simply keep repeating the same lies/suppositions over and over again, ad nauseam. We should now let you teach our children this odd cult-like behavior? Not likely, we prefer to teach our children critical thinking and reasoning as to not be fooled by two-bit insincere con men pretending to be scientist, teachers and saviors of ‘mother earth’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.