Thanks to Roger Pielke, Sr., I learned that the NCSE added “defending” climate science to its mission in January which previously was limited to defending evolution. Personally, I don’t know why anyone needs to “defend” evolution, it is a scientific fact. Climate science, on the other hand, is still very much a young science with a great deal in dispute.
Why do I have a problem with these people? Let me count the ways…
Take a look at their list of officers. Not a single one has any background in atmospheric or climate science whatsoever, yet they claim to offer “expert advice” on climate science. They even offer some of these people as speakers on the subject.
But, they give the game away when you drill down into their website:
NCSE — in common with a number of scholarly and journalistic observers of the social controversies surrounding climate change — opts to use the terms “climate changer deniers” and “climate change denial”
Finally, consider this,
“Undermine climate change indoctrination education?” ”Petitions” are not the tools of people interested in science, they are tools of political advocacy.
Finally, they list a giant in the field of applied atmospheric science and aviation engineering, Paul MacCready, as a “supporter” of theirs as of December 11, 2011. Paul passed away in 2007!!
I knew Paul. We were on the UCLA Department of Atmospheric Science Advisory Board for a number of years. While Paul was a strong environmentalist, I never saw any evidence that he bought into catastrophic global warming. While it may be possible his position changed at the end of his life (I have no evidence of that, just conceding the possibility; I had not talked to him the last couple of years before his death), I’m absolutely certain Paul would not have wanted people called “deniers.”
As unbiased conveyers of climate change information, I’d give the NCSE an F.