I think I should leave it here for a day or so...after changing it with the inputs I will post it.

I do not think responses from groups can be directed to FT.. if so I would like to do it.. but I am afraid a name should be in there.. so I will take responsability for it...

But I would like input.

A plesure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

If you want a parallel to the current situation where the politicians are criticizing the scientists, you might be interested in the Grand Banks Fishery in Canada. There are some clear parallels.

Some fishermen reported disturbing problems about the fishery close to shore. Eventually the scientists came on board. The politicians were not willing to face the political consequences of the predictions that the scientists made.

John Crosby (Newfoundland Cabinit Minister) in discussing why he prerered a go slow approach to limiting cod catches:

These questions are not decided by scientists. And it is just as well they are not because if they were last year we would have wiped out the whole off shore fishery.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1595-10940/politics_economy/cod_economy/clip4

The scientists (and inshore cod fishermen) were right. The fishery has been destroyed. The politicians were wrong.

I googled "cod fishery".

This looked like an interesting site:
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-73-1595/politics_economy/cod_economy/
I didn't look at all the information, but item #4 and #9 might in particular be useful.
stiangovernment.ca/

_{aspiring to genteel poverty}

I it is great, I started to giggle.

But I think it would win on dropping the last sentence. The third paragraph is the crescendo and deserves to finish it of.

Otherwise, just hilarious.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

Try this k.  I made just a few minor changes.  My tendency would be towards making the point (he's a dangerous nut) and not overdoing it.  With that in mind, I might shorten it even more than I did here.  I always try to make the point hard then quit.  Good response.

"My question would be: how can I convince my fellow scientists that people who think that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, believe that the second law of thermodynamics should (does not?) not exist, can't fathom that HIV has a viral origin, and still believe that global warming is either a hoax or, at most, just a climatic aberration that will produce minor problems, are not just fringe lunatics but also very powerful people interested in a pre-enlightenment world?
It is very difficult to convince them that some people in your group are not lunatics but a have a clear agenda to discredit science and enlightenment values. A world where facts do not exist (it is just "scientific consensus"), evidence is irrelevant (because, oh my Lord. scientific ideas depend on a "minority that speaks louder") and where words like "freedom" and "liberty" are twisted to favour one's particular religion (in the case of the author, a particular deluded version of economic and human reality) over bothersome facts, are the common talking points behind people promoting the narrative you present in this article.
But somehow my fellow scientists refuse to believe that you are anything more than a scientifically challenged person. What can I do to convince them that you are really serious about what you are saying? How can I convince them that you really mean it, that you really want to explain to the world that those pesky facts are nothing to worry about, that taking action to prevent highly likely catastrophes is dangerous enviromentalism, that scientists should be aware of the political implications of what they say but at the same time we should not politicize science?"


I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

Notes:

1. I took the liberty to edit some minor changes (typos and such)
   
2. I would make the point that he wants to explain to the world "that scientists should be aware of the political implications of what they say but at the same time" politicians should not be held accountable for pontificating about science; also that environmentalism is a dangerous secular religion, while an utopian view of infinite growth and unbrindled consumerism is not. But am not sure this fits in better, make your pick.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

not sure if this helps your response or not but its a link to a New Scientist article debunking climate change myths

Climate myths: Many leading scientists question climate change

Funnily enough they also mention Richard Lindzen of MIT but say that he doesnt deny climate change is happening, just disagrees with the predicted severity. So that just leaves the author quoting Michael Crichton, that well known science FICTION author.....as a scientist should i be accepting his novels as the work of this silent majority......?

best of luck with it