My complaint to MIT – part 1

This is a transcript of my first (successful) email to MIT complaining about Professor Richard Lindzen (dated 9 March 2012): ————— Professor Van der Hilst Department Head and Schlumberger Professor of Earth Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology Boston, MA Dear Professor Van der Hilst, Complaint of Academic Misconduct and/or Dishonesty against Professor Richard S Lindzen, pursuant to Section 689 (Falsification) of the National Science Foundation Regulations on Misconduct. With my thanks to your Departmental Secretary, who gave me your email address, I hereby wish to make the above complaint arising from my attendance, as an invited guest, at a meeting in the Palace of Westminster of 22 February 2012, at which Professor Lindzen gave a presentation entitled Global Warming: How to approach the science (Climate Models and the Evidence?). Please note that I have previously sent an email like this to policies@mit.edu but I think this must be the cyberspace equivalent of a bAltman hole. However, now certain that I have got an appropriate email address, I would appreciate confirmation by return email that you are investigating it. Not only was I extremely concerned by what appears to have been a blatantly hypocritical, obfuscatory, and misleading presentation, I have since discovered that Professor Lindzen has given this talk, or something very much like it, on at least two previous occasions: 1. At the Heartland Institute’s 4th International Climate Change Conference in May 2010; and 2. In testimony to US House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing in November 2010. I have now sent Professor Lindzen 3 emails (on 23 and 25 February, and 5 March but, as yet I have had no explanation – let alone a satisfactory one – for the issues I have raised in my emails to him. Transcripts of my 3 emails have already been published on my Anthropocene Reality Blog (on the politics and psychology underlying the denial of all our environmental problems) as follows: An open letter to Richard Lindzen (28 February 2012) – 1800 word email with questions from me. Prof. Lindzen – try this instead! (29 February 2012) – Many of my questions re-formulated as 17 simple statements via which I invited Professor Lindzen to explain his position. There is no cause for concern? You cannot be serious! (5 March 2012) – about 900 words – plus some very interesting comments from me and others. In addition to all of the above, with my thanks to Fay Kelly Tuncay (who organised the meeting), there is a video of the question and answer session that followed the presentation, in which you can see me attempting to address what I felt to be Professor Lindzen’s misrepresentation and/or obfuscation of relevant palaeoclimatic data and, consequently, being prevented from asking a question. This video and comments relating to it may be found in the comments section beneath Lindzengate – an update report (8 March 2012). If nothing else, Professor Lindzen’s repetitive divergence from – and ridicule of – the genuine scientific consensus regarding the nature, scale and urgency of the problem we face (i.e. anthropogenic climate disruption) and/or his invocation of conspiracy theory as a grounds for dismissing the validity and reliability of that consensus would appear to be in severe danger of damaging the international reputation of your highly-esteemed establishment. Furthermore, because I consider this to be such a gravely important issue with global consequences, if I do not receive such a confirmation, or alternative directions, from you by 1600hrs GMT on Monday 19 March 2012 (10 calendar days from today), I shall forward this email to Suzanne Goldenberg (US Environmental Correspondent for the Guardian newspaper) and a number of equivalent journalists in the UK, suggesting that they publish it forthwith because, in the continuing absence of a satisfactory explanation from him, I am inclined to think that Professor Lindzen appears to be part of an organised campaign to downplay, deny and/or dismiss anthropogenic climate change being orchestrated by right-wing, ideologically-prejudiced Conservative Think Tanks (CTTs) such as the Heartland Institute and the CATO Institute. I have reached this conclusion, in no small part, as a result of my reading of research done by Peter Jacques et al., the findings of which may be summarised as follows: In prefacing their research, Jacques et al. observed that… “Since environmentalism is unique among social movements in its heavy reliance on scientific evidence to support its claims… it is not surprising that CTTs would launch a direct assault on environmental science by promoting environmental scepticism…” (2008: 353). Furthermore, based on their findings, they concluded that: “Environmental scepticism is an elite-driven reaction to global environmentalism, organised by core actors within the conservative movement. Promoting scepticism is a key tactic of the anti-environmental counter-movement co-ordinated by CTTs…” (ibid: 364). Jacques has also highlighted the central aim of CTTs as being to cause confusion and doubt amongst the general public, in order to prevent the creation of a popular mandate for change (i.e. achieved by using a tactic developed by the tobacco industry of countering supposedly “junk” science with their “sound” science), which he refers to as the “science trap” (2009: 148). Based on the findings of the research published in 2008, Jacques therefore also concluded that environmental scepticism is a social counter-movement that uses CTTs to provide “political insulation for industry and ideology from public scrutiny”; and that this deliberate obfuscation stems from a realisation that “anti-environmentalism is an attitude that most citizens would consider a violation of the public interest” (2009: 169). However, Jacques does not blame the CTTs for the ecological crisis he feels we face, as they have merely exploited a dominant social paradigm; “because neoliberal globalism and its logic are protected from critique” (ibid: 119). In concluding, may I take the opportunity to apologise for any intemperate and/or emotive remarks I may have made on my blog; and assure you that these are indicative of my concern for the future habitability of planet Earth. They should not be interpreted as in any way hostile to Professor Lindzen personally, as I am not seeking to attack the messengers; only what I – and the vast majority of relevantly-qualified climate scientists – consider to be a dangerously erroneous message. I therefore trust that I may hear from you in the very near future. Yours very sincerely, [etc]. References: Jacques, P. et al (2008), ‘The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism’, Environmental Politics, 17(3), pp.349-385. Jacques, P. (2009), Environmental Skepticism: Ecology, Power and Public Life. Farnham: Ashgate. ———————- When I did not get any response to this, I sent a second email on Tuesday 13 March 2012, which I will post here tomorrow.