Slashdot Mirror

Which has nothing to do with gasoline, that, among other things, is refined. While electricity production does not use refined fuels. Using subsidies per gallon of gasoline as some sort of metric, instead of kwh which is fuel agnostic, is weird AF. Suggests to me that Solandri is working some angle. And surprise, surprise, surprise, the source for his claim about subsidies is a dallas based 'think-tank' that is principally funded by the oil industry.

So, my next question is how did Solandri come upon that weird source about subsidies in the first place?

Is he a useful idiot, unwittingly distributing disinformation, or does he know what he's doing and doesn't care?

Kinda reminds me of this analysis of historical russian disinformation techniques, but instead of a false article in an unscrupulous newspaper in india or poland, its a false article on an unscrupulous website

> Uhh, the source was linked in his post [ncpa.org].

Ugh. NCPA is a well-known oil-shill. I wouldn't take anything they say at face value.

It is actually comical that the views espoused by these nutty deniers are in fact part of an actual conspiracy amongst oil companies such as Exxon to delay action on climate change as much as possible. Their actions have deeply damaged the level of public discourse in America, and have thus damaged democracy itself.

But any sceptic today is immediately suspected of being on Big Oil's payroll anyway.

Not doing so would be failing to take into account the existence of all the groups funded by ExxonMobil, the Koch foundations and others: American Enterprise Institute, American Legislative Exchange Council, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Americans for Prosperity, Beacon Hill Institute, Cato Institute, DonorsTrust, Heartland Institute, Heritage Foundation, Institute for Energy Research, , National Center for Policy Analysis, and hundreds more.

The $1.5 bln would buy a lot of scientists — especially those, who already think AGW is a real concern and whose conscience would thus be a lot cheaper.

So you would have us believe that the thousands of scientists who contributed to the IPCC report are all corrupt and not one of them spilled the beans. Not only that but since the report is reviewed by the governments of over 120 countries with competing interests you would also have us believe that they are all in on the conspiracy and that none saw fit to expose it to discredit their adversaries! And all these scientists would be producing bogus results without anyone in the organizations and countries financing them noticing something fishy?

Well, as they say, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof and all you have are unsubstantiated accusations.

I do not doubt, that you share the concerns over the fabled "Military-Industrial Complex" influencing the government towards "perpetual war" so it can forever sell the armaments.

Wow! Aren't you a bit quick putting people you disagree with into neat little boxes! What will you accuse me of next?

This Machine Kills Secrets, by Andy Greenberg

-----Unauthorized Book Review-----

Privacy on the Internet can easily be a life or death proposition: whether it was Yahoo and Jerry Yang outing a Chinese pro-democracy activist to the Chinese government, the secret police of Bahrain disappearing protesters, or the extraordinarily long incarceration and sleep-deprivation torture of Bradley Manning, the outcomes can be enormous!

When events work positively, lives are saved and movements flourish in Myanmar, Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

Andy Greenberg's monumental book, This Machine Kills Secrets, delivers mightily. Greenberg has exhaustively researched the story --- and the back story --- providing the reader with the ultimate bird's eye view of the unfolding story of WikiLeaks, Internet privacy and the corporate and governmental battles waged against them --- this is one kick ass book --- and Greenberg gets everything right!

This is no David Wise or Eamon Javers misinformation trope, this is the real deal, my Wolfen friends.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0525953205

For those who wish to stay current, the sites below may be of interest.

I-Sites:

http://www.privacysos.org/blog
http://cryptogon.com/
http://www.narconews.com/
http://www.globaleaks.org/
http://www.cryptome.org/
http://www.whistleblower.org/
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/06/139231/majority-of-landmark-cancer-studies-cannot-be-replicated

http://www.thelocal.se/39070/20120213/

So far, around 150 children in Sweden have developed narcolepsy from the Pandemrixswine flu vaccine, but that number could rise, according to Tomas Norberg, chair of the Swedish Narcolepsy Association (Narkolepsiföreningen).

http://dangerousprescriptiondrugs.weebly.com/flu-vaccine--narcolepsy.html

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=10

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Legislative_Exchange_Council

Really?

There really is a lot of corporate based funding for anti-climate change "science". (Though, right there, it's not really science, as it starts with bias. But the funding is there.)

And even when they manage to get scientists to go along with the whole denial thing, it has been known to backfire. Rather spectacularly.

research fellow at the Independent Institut

Oooh, they're independent because they say so ... I'm sorry, but what about them makes me believe that?

Is it that they get funding from Exxon? How about Philip Morris? How about the fact that they're well known shills for Microsoft?

I'm sorry, but you keep citing groups who are either shills for your beliefs, or the people who espouse them ... so I accuse you of circular logic and sleight of hand. These guys get together into a little self congratulatory circle jerk to put out papers that espouse their point of view, and then use them as sources for when they're later espousing their point of view.

The fact that you're citing a vitriol filled, libertarian biased think tank who sees the world through the lens they wish to see it doesn't make any of what you're citing as facts.

In fact, if you're going to continue to rely on a biased organization who exists to provide position papers to support its sponsors ... well, then you have so thoroughly drunk the kool aid as to have become someone who believes in the dogma, and has left rational thought behind him.

Sorry man, but the "Independent Institute" is a political tool of a conservative agenda. As such, I simply won't take anything they put forth as fact, but propaganda.

The asshat who wrote the first study sited in TFA is a shill for ExxonMobil. The article hinges it's entire premis on the results of the second scholarly work which is a month old draft of an unpublished, unpeer-reviewed, unproven idea for an econometric model to analyze policy effects on on safety (translate: probably not even close to accurate). In fact, the article states as it's first line "Research confirms that increasing fuel economy standards does cost lives on the road.", as if this is proven fucking fact now. Stuff like this on slashdot makes me want to punch people in the face. Few bother to question or even read linked articles but love to go all modern jackass on meta shit that doesn't even have anything to do with the subject.

It's ironic that you cite co2science.org after raising doubts about using Wikipedia as a source. First, co2science evidently wants to hide who's behind them:
      http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/co2science.org

Second, the website is funded by Exxon/Mobil and by the Mellon oil fortune through the Sara Scaife foundation:
      http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24
      http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change/funders

Co2science's latest focus of obfuscation is the "medieval warm period". For better, and more honest context on that topic, see
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

I wonder whether our civilization will collapse. We have a problem. But instead of arguing about how big this problem is, and what to do about it, too many of us are in denial. It may be that the consequences are mild enough that we can get away with such behavior. If we acted that way towards every problem we face, we would die.

But I wouldn't care to bet on this problem being no big deal, particularly when we don't have to and it's actually more costly to do so. Contrary to the knee jerk thinking that this is all going to be very expensive, the solutions will make our civilization more efficient. That's right, switching to WWS (wind, wave, and solar) and weaning ourselves off of oil would be worth doing even if AGW wasn't real. We'll save money. We could leave the Middle East alone at a huge savings in money and lives.

Maybe you have not appreciated just how wonderful an electric motor is compared to a combustion piston engine? Engines are smelly, polluting, noisy, complicated, unreliable, bulky, cumbersome, expensive, dangerously hot, and hard to operate. An electric motor turns on and off in an instant, and is so quiet, smooth, steady, and small. Doesn't need oil changes. Doesn't vibrate its load, causing more wear and forcing the use of heavier components to withstand it. Converts more than 90% of its input into useful work, versus 30% for engines. If that isn't enough, to maybe better see how awful engines are, imagine using a fan powered by a gasoline engine. You'd be choking on the fumes it'd be blowing in your face. You'd have to rig up some kind of belt drive so you could put the engine outside, maybe add a flue to exhaust the fumes, maybe put it in a closet to muffle the noise. What is the matter with you that you can bear to continue living with piston engines and other assorted inferior tech if you don't have to? Is familiarity worth that much? It's not as big a change as you might think. Trains have been halfway there for decades, with the diesel electrics. For railroads, the advantages of driving wheels with electric motors have been so big that it's been more than worth the losses involved in the conversion. Everywhere we can, we use electric motors in preference. The reason they aren't yet widespread in cars is that their "fuel" is hard to store and transfer quickly.

I see little hope for us if a seemingly intelligent person (like yourself?) can't go see for yourself and be honest enough to admit that this information is not fake or wrong or flawed. It would help if there weren't all these liars out there pretending to be scientists-- and have no doubt, those sorts aren't making innocent mistakes, no. They are lying, and they know it. What they may not understand is that they aren't doing good science. Don't seem to get what good science is. They actually think that real scientists make up bull like they do, and that doing so is somehow not the same thing as lying, or that being careful with the facts is not important. There is no way a group as widespread, diverse, numerous, and contentious as real scientists could or would engineer a massive conspiracy to fake something like this, or that lies or mistakes could long go unnoticed and unremarked. Nor is it conceivable that all of us are so stupid as to be mistaken or wrong, and wrong in the same way when there are infinitely many contradictory and mutually exclusive ways to be wrong. Nor can you put this down to "groupthink". If you give that notion any credibility, you fail to understand how competitive and factual real science is.

If you've understood how improbable it is that we're lying or wrong, then how can you not see that our information on the climate does show a break from the past, and that it coincides with the rise of our fossil fuel usage and this is not a coincidence b

Well, the burden of proof really lies on the people making the claims. In this case its sufficient to show that what is obviously a right wing organization (its founder wrote things like: "Kyoto is killing off the world economy like an "international Auschwitz," "The Kyoto Protocol is a death pact, however strange it may sound, because its main aim is to strangle economic growth and economic activity in countries that accept the protocol's requirements." source) with a vendetta, so its extremely unlikely to stand up to large quantities of peer reviewed research.

In the end, you can can either believe lots of peer reviewed science, or institutes that compared the Kyoto protocol to concentration camps. Does this mean that the Russian right wing think tank is wrong? I suppose not, but its extremely like that it is, which is good enough for this type of conversation.

Its pretty clear that the "Institute of Economic Analysis" is a right wing whackjob source. It was founded by this guy. His wikipedia entry

Who also authored stuff like:

"Kyoto is killing off the world economy like an "international Auschwitz," "The Kyoto Protocol is a death pact, however strange it may sound, because its main aim is to strangle economic growth and economic activity in countries that accept the protocol's requirements."

and

"A Liberal Agenda for the New Century: A Global Perspective"

and has been in a ton of questionable institutes.

So believing anything from a group like this would probably not be wise to say the least.

You mean the commercial entities with a revenue stream to protect are funding lobby groups to manipulate public opinion and corrupt the political process?
I'm shocked! Shocked I tell ya!

Well, OK. I'm not that shocked. In fact I'm pretty sure this has happened before.
Exxon is pretty good at this sort of thing:-
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding

And groups like the Heartland Institute ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute ) are whoring for so many masters I fully expect to see them expand into the "intellectual property" debate any day now.

Its pretty important for citizens to hone their bullshit detectors to try and figure out when they are the target of a snow job.
Here are a few tools I use to pretty good effect when employing my bullshit detector:

"Who benefits" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono
"You can't get something for nothing" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law
"The simpler theory is often correct" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor
( be careful with that last one - it can be a slippery sucker)

One does have to look at the broader context in situations like this.

First point, since it has some humor value, is that Carlin's field is economics. He is expert in the same studies and techniques as those wonderful quants who gave the financial world those marvelous risk management tools called "derivatives". Economics was nick-named "the dismal science" for a couple of reasons, one being a reference to the quality of the extrapolations that economists have used in their predictions.

More serious points: this news is presented to the world through the Competitive Enterprise Institute. It has a $3 million+ annual budget, and is supported by donations from ExxonMobil, American Petroleum Institute, Dow Chemical, General Motors, Ford Motor Company, Phillip Morris, and others. It is characterized as a "libertarian" think tank ideologically opposed to any government regulation of business conduct. It has taken an active role in advocating for "free-market environmentalism" where corporations and not governments would determine the best way to manage the environment. It has been a continuing, constant critic of global warming concerns. (See Wikipedia article, also validation of primary source, also Google on "Competitive Enterprise Institute".)

WRT Alan Carlin himself: he has been in the US Civil Service for 38 years, so he is fully vested in one of the best retirement packages in the world, and he is at retirement age. His title is "Senior Operations Research Analyst" at the National Center for Environmental Economics of the EPA. He would be at the top of his pay scale at this point, and it is unlikely that continued Federal employment has anything to offer him that he would be interested in doing (a common theme through the papers he has published in the last few years shows a bias against the kinds of Federal protections that the Obama Administration is involved in setting up). It is not at all unlikely that he will soon start drawing his Federal pension and begin a second career in the private sector as a consultant with expertise on EPA matters, or as a staff person in a think tank not unlike CEI. (see synopsis of A. Carlin's career.)

WRT the emails that were sent to Carlin, that were then mysteriously leaked to the national media through CEI: Carlin attempted to inject his argument against a policy decision into the works after he would have known that the period for such commentary was closed. Further, he was acting out of his area of expertise, which is economics, by attempting a review of the recent literature of climate research papers. Further, and to me most telling, is that he admits that he has not formatted his work in accordance with EPA standards, nor is providing proper citations that would allow distinguishing between crap and peer reviewed papers. I see this clearly showing that he had an ulterior motive of monkeywrenching the process, since his past publications show that he knows very well how to write these kinds of papers. It looks very much like he knew his work would be rejected, planned on having it rejected, and planned on collecting the emails that he would receive afterward to use in the way that these emails have been used. (See the .pdf referred to in the article summary, and note that the 4 emails were cherry picked from a much longer body of correspondence.)

BTW, taken in context,the quote from Carlin's boss, "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision," takes on a very different meaning. What Carlin is being told is that discussion has moved on from what the science is to what the legal and societal implications are, and how to frame a policy that addresses those c

Sorry, but the Heartland Institute has the is an dedicated to unregulated, free markets. They are a policy organization masquerading as a research group, one which has been accused of being funded heavily by Exxon. Now I usually view GreenPeace's "facts" with quite a bit of skepticism, but I do the same with anything coming out of the Heartland Institute. Both organizations are so hell bent on political influence, that they can't maintain the objective view needed to supply useful facts. At some point science-with-a-political-slant becomes political-rhetoric-with-a-scientific-slant. Both of these organizations are well over that line.

You should really try to read what I wrote. Gradualism is what is being taught. It does not fit the fossil record. Trying to point that out will get you branded as a heretic. All I'm wanting is for "science" to clean house and at least abide by its own rules. I'm not trying to get science to agree with me, just to not make thinks up out of thin air and then teach it to my kids as a proven fact.

Gene duplication is not new information, just a copy. What point mutation has created something new as opposed to removed something from the gene. If your new thing only comes from removing information, you will eventually end up with nothing.

Because if true, [recapitulation theory] would be observable evolution. That's why the hoax was created in the first place.

Recapitulation theory is a pretty obvious [example].

Pat Michaels is a good example.

I know people who have lost their job for doing good science simple because it did not agree with the prevailing opinions.

hmmm, how about people who die from heat stroke during the summer, or asthmatics having an attack due to smog, or i don't know people who die in a tornado or hurricane that is more intense due to it being 1 degree hotter. Do you work for Exxon? You might as well :( Stuff: Exxon Still Funding Climate Change Deniers $900 BILLION OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS PRESSURE EXXON MOBIL ON GLOBAL WARMING Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science EarthTalk: Exxon/Mobil's Climate Change Contrarions Report: ExxonMobil Spends Millions Funding Global Warming Skeptics ExxonSecrets

Selfishness seems to have become the core value of America right now. The measure of all actions is self interest. Individuals and corporations are encouraged to act solely in their own self interest, for that, we are told is the best way to ensure the common interest. While there is some truth to this, overall it is dangerous delusion. We are all part of a larger civilization, and the fate of that civilization effects all of us.

Climate change is an issue that will effect all of us. And no matter how many deluded denials there are, no matter how loud those deluded denials are shouted, no matter much we look away from the unpleasant truth, the laws of physics remain. No matter the slippery and reassuring words of oil industry funded public relations people, the landslide of data supporting the predictions of climate scientists will remain.

Reducing carbon emissions is highly likely to cause great harm to corporations whose main income comes from oil extraction. Thus we see many of these oil interests working hard to prevent any effective reduction in carbon emissions. After all, it's just self interest. If you were facing the loss of billions and billions of dollars, wouldn't you be fighting it? Except that the oil companies' profits are coming at the expense of the future of our civilization. I believe that unless we as a society overcome our obsession with pure self interest, our civilization will enter a period of profound decline. Is that really in our best interest?

First, his funding - yes, he gets a lot of money from public sources, undercutting the argument that the real reason that so many prominent climatologists support global warming theories is to get funding. As far as I know, he no longer gets money from oil and coal interests.

Secondly, his intentions - I believe that Lindzen is basically a good, honest scientist who believes what he says. I also think he's a regular human being (as are all scientists) who is capable of fooling himself. You can witness that by looking at some of his seemingly (to me, anyways) self-contradictory comments, but I'll get to those later.

Now, let's address the actual article in question:

There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true.

So, I've decided to go back through some previous things he's written, and I basically find the same pattern: he admits that humans are most likely contributing to global warming, but he neglects to even speculate as to how much. Why do you think that is? Or, if you think I've mischaracterized him, can you find any evidence to the contrary?

Finally, I'd like to stress that I am not a climatologist. However, other climatologists have critiqued his Newsweek article.

Finally, something about Lindzen that does make me ponder. Recently, the BBC attributed this to him:

This attitude has strong backing from Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who describes Exxon Mobil as "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US."

Funny. I see this in TFA Myth: Many leading scientists question climate change .Then I find this article.

Also, in TFA, I see this: Myth: Polar bear numbers are increasing Then I see this.

"The critical problem is, the sea ice is changing. We're looking ahead three generations, 30 to 50 years. To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant," says Derocher." [f the World Conservation Union and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton.] "The increase in the population is not a climate-change related issue," Derocher claims. It's the result of "conservation and an increase in the harp seal population," he says."I don't think there is any question polar bears are threatened by global warming," responds Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton.

I wouldn't put too much stock in any "science" from anyone at the Dept. of the Interior. Interior is a haven for folks who all share the same opinions and work towards the same agenda.

Actually you haven't. You quoted a open letter but you did not quote the source. The letter came from ECO (Environmental Conservation Organization). They were formed in 1988 to battle environmental regulations and have been linked to Exxon.

ECO link to Exxon http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? id=82

Perhaps that is the framing as far as you are concerned, but the article is about Lindzen and other deniers. So according to Dr. Lindzen:

It's amazing what you can buy for $2,500, huh?

Just because I'm ignorant of this particular subject (...) doesn't make me stupid, or wrong.

Actually, in this case I think it does. This stuff isn't complex. The carbon cycle isn't brain surgery, petroleum use and concepts like "net release" are fairly simple and absolute climatic change versus rate of climatic change is a fairly unsophisticated distinction. If you are unable to grasp even the basics of this subject, then perhaps you should STFU, DIAF or both. Perhaps, if you were to do the latter, the CO2 release would be worth it.

Personally, I think you are not only not versed in this subject, but you're also ignorant of economics. Claiming that the one side is being sensationalist while having an equally uninformed view of the other is pretty stupid. Did you perhaps think that the other side, who have billions to lose, may perhaps be spreading sensationalism to protect their vast personal vested interests? Oh no, that can't be the case, it's only hippies who spread FUD. Corporations never do that. Perhaps you'd be little less protective of big money if you realized that the economic impact of "doing something" won't be hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. Even if it were, do you really think that multi-millionaire CEOs care about you and your friends' jobs? No, they care about their profit margins. News flash: You're more of a mindless sensationalist than the left wing hippies you so loudly criticize, there is no evidence whatsoever that the cost of being environmentally friendly is lost profits. In fact here is an example showing just the opposite, and here's an article written in 1998 so you can see the progress that has been made.

There's an example of "doing something" that's not only good for the environment, but economically great too. Oh, and it's a 13 year old project. Now, what was that about all this environmental stuff being new, misunderstood and economically dubious?

By the way, apparently you didn't check the results of your search, and you're not getting the hint. Lets pull some up for you.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? id=38

"Solidly a corporate front group, GCC shared offices with the National Association of Manufacturers from its founding in 1989 through 1987. American Petroleum Institute's then-Executive Vice President William O'Keefe served as Chair for a number of years. (O'Keefe is now head of the George C. Marshall Institute). The coalition began to fall apart when Shell withdrew from coalition on 4/22/98, announcing that global warming is a problem they should be solving."

Or perhaps you might want to review this hit:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? id=128

"The Free Enterprise Education Institute runs the website CSR/SRI Watch. The site is anti-corporate social responsibility/socially responsible investment and monitors the so-called "anti-business" movement composed of social and environmental activists holding corporations accountable for their actions. CSR/SRI Watch lists the "Top 10 Worst Moments in Free Enterprise" which includes companies who buy fair-trade coffee, BP's renewable energy plans, and Citigroup's decision to not lend to those contributing to global warming and logging as per the Rainforest Action Network's asks. "

You'll find that on cases where there's a link between a funder listed and "global warming denial", apart from Exxon-Mobil, it's usually concerning some huge institute which lobbies on a very wide range of issues. For example, unless you're going to start talking about how wicked Netscape, Prudential, BellSouth, and ChaseManhattan Bank are trying to deny global warming... ;) Or perhaps you're referring to the anti-warming efforts of Kraft, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the National Association of Homebuilders. If people believe in Global Warming, why, they'll never buy another box of macaroni & cheese or a new home again!

In short, actually read what you link before you link it, please.

By the way, apparently you didn't check the results of your search, and you're not getting the hint. Lets pull some up for you.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? id=38

"Solidly a corporate front group, GCC shared offices with the National Association of Manufacturers from its founding in 1989 through 1987. American Petroleum Institute's then-Executive Vice President William O'Keefe served as Chair for a number of years. (O'Keefe is now head of the George C. Marshall Institute). The coalition began to fall apart when Shell withdrew from coalition on 4/22/98, announcing that global warming is a problem they should be solving."

Or perhaps you might want to review this hit:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? id=128

"The Free Enterprise Education Institute runs the website CSR/SRI Watch. The site is anti-corporate social responsibility/socially responsible investment and monitors the so-called "anti-business" movement composed of social and environmental activists holding corporations accountable for their actions. CSR/SRI Watch lists the "Top 10 Worst Moments in Free Enterprise" which includes companies who buy fair-trade coffee, BP's renewable energy plans, and Citigroup's decision to not lend to those contributing to global warming and logging as per the Rainforest Action Network's asks. "

You'll find that on cases where there's a link between a funder listed and "global warming denial", apart from Exxon-Mobil, it's usually concerning some huge institute which lobbies on a very wide range of issues. For example, unless you're going to start talking about how wicked Netscape, Prudential, BellSouth, and ChaseManhattan Bank are trying to deny global warming... ;) Or perhaps you're referring to the anti-warming efforts of Kraft, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the National Association of Homebuilders. If people believe in Global Warming, why, they'll never buy another box of macaroni & cheese or a new home again!

In short, actually read what you link before you link it, please.

By the way, apparently you didn't check the results of your search, and you're not getting the hint. Lets pull some up for you.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? id=38

"Solidly a corporate front group, GCC shared offices with the National Association of Manufacturers from its founding in 1989 through 1987. American Petroleum Institute's then-Executive Vice President William O'Keefe served as Chair for a number of years. (O'Keefe is now head of the George C. Marshall Institute). The coalition began to fall apart when Shell withdrew from coalition on 4/22/98, announcing that global warming is a problem they should be solving."

Or perhaps you might want to review this hit:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? id=128

"The Free Enterprise Education Institute runs the website CSR/SRI Watch. The site is anti-corporate social responsibility/socially responsible investment and monitors the so-called "anti-business" movement composed of social and environmental activists holding corporations accountable for their actions. CSR/SRI Watch lists the "Top 10 Worst Moments in Free Enterprise" which includes companies who buy fair-trade coffee, BP's renewable energy plans, and Citigroup's decision to not lend to those contributing to global warming and logging as per the Rainforest Action Network's asks. "

You'll find that on cases where there's a link between a funder listed and "global warming denial", apart from Exxon-Mobil, it's usually concerning some huge institute which lobbies on a very wide range of issues. For example, unless you're going to start talking about how wicked Netscape, Prudential, BellSouth, and ChaseManhattan Bank are trying to deny global warming... ;) Or perhaps you're referring to the anti-warming efforts of Kraft, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the National Association of Homebuilders. If people believe in Global Warming, why, they'll never buy another box of macaroni & cheese or a new home again!

In short, actually read what you link before you link it, please.

By the way, apparently you didn't check the results of your search, and you're not getting the hint. Lets pull some up for you.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? id=38

"Solidly a corporate front group, GCC shared offices with the National Association of Manufacturers from its founding in 1989 through 1987. American Petroleum Institute's then-Executive Vice President William O'Keefe served as Chair for a number of years. (O'Keefe is now head of the George C. Marshall Institute). The coalition began to fall apart when Shell withdrew from coalition on 4/22/98, announcing that global warming is a problem they should be solving."

Or perhaps you might want to review this hit:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? id=128

"The Free Enterprise Education Institute runs the website CSR/SRI Watch. The site is anti-corporate social responsibility/socially responsible investment and monitors the so-called "anti-business" movement composed of social and environmental activists holding corporations accountable for their actions. CSR/SRI Watch lists the "Top 10 Worst Moments in Free Enterprise" which includes companies who buy fair-trade coffee, BP's renewable energy plans, and Citigroup's decision to not lend to those contributing to global warming and logging as per the Rainforest Action Network's asks. "

You'll find that on cases where there's a link between a funder listed and "global warming denial", apart from Exxon-Mobil, it's usually concerning some huge institute which lobbies on a very wide range of issues. For example, unless you're going to start talking about how wicked Netscape, Prudential, BellSouth, and ChaseManhattan Bank are trying to deny global warming... ;) Or perhaps you're referring to the anti-warming efforts of Kraft, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the National Association of Homebuilders. If people believe in Global Warming, why, they'll never buy another box of macaroni & cheese or a new home again!

In short, actually read what you link before you link it, please.

I think we are witnessing a rant by Marc Morano which received disproportionate attention by it's referral on slashdot. In case this referral was deliberate, we are witnessing a political smear campaign. Live and in colour

His former jobs include producing the Rush Limbaugh show and writing fan fiction for the oil industry. Taking that with his complete misrepresentation of the original statements and you have at least a strong circumstantial case for an intentional smear campaign.

--MarkusQ

The person writing that inflammatory straw man blog did PR work for Exxon.

"2 November, 2002
Wrote an article entitled "Greens Praise ExxonMobil for Efforts to Save Tiger," which highlighted ExxonMobil's donations to tiger conservation efforts.
Source: CNSNews.com"

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.p hp?id=1126

Exxon currently has a PR campaign going to refute global warming, they are worried that energy efficiency schemes will reduce their profits.

http://www.prwatch.org/node/5642

So he's just a shill, trying to exaggerate statements made by a weather channel presenter in order to denigrate the science of climate change.

... are just financed by the big oil business. It is not a scientific debate, but a massive campaign of distortion financed by corporate America. And the climate-septics are no scientists, but paid whores, who spell the lies of Exxon and co. Just take a look: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/busti ng-exxon-climate-crimina

The climate-skeptics are just a bunch of hired criminals.

The article's constant harping on the other beliefs of the person who filed the initial complaint is an attempt to use an ad-hominem to discredit all opposition to Gore's controversial position.

it is clear that the film itself is a propaganda piece promoting one side of a partisan political argument...

Hardison's complaint was that showing such a partisan piece in a public school (where attendance is mandatory), with no voice from any of the opposing views, constitutes propaganda and indoctrination.

Bringing up his other beliefs - and by implication attributing them to ALL who disagree with any of the films claims or its presentation in this manner - is itself another piece of partisan propaganda.

The persuasiveness of the anti-global warming crowd has its origins in the argumentation structure of Holocaust Deniers. Please refer to Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things" for a description of how to go about constructing the argument in an effective way.

Unfortunately, there are those among us who feel that Global Warming is a singular argument that can be disproven by one set of observations or by re-labeling part of the system.

Global Warming is a theory that arises from the confluence of many thousands of observations. It is generally accepted by the scientific community (see the Union of Concerned Scientists.) There are a very small number of scientists who believe otherwise.

Scroll down this list to Exxon and take a look at the list of foundations. Visit a few and then go to the excellent Exxon Secrets which was funded by Greenpeace a few years ago. Cool social networking analysis. You will see how sixteen million dollars was used to persuade you and I that it is not necessary to do anything about CO2.

It is pretty hard to argue that scientists who can get published in Environmental Geology are being repressed.

But I wouldn't take too much notice of that web site, it is mostly (if not entirely) propaganda.

Nice impartial study you quoted there:

Pity that 'think tank' is funded mostly by oil companies isn't it?

"Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998."
source:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? id=2

And here's who pays for him: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.p hp?id=338 Note that Lewis isn't a climate scientist, or any kind of scientist. Right wing activist is a better description.

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "consensus". Certainly not all qualified scientists believe "human caused global warming" is a dominant factor in current climate change. You might check this 2002 article (for instance): http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/14 /161152.shtml

The one tangible thing that's been done to try and address global warming is the Kyoto Protocol. It is quite flawed, though, in that it gives exemptions to the countries which are most likely to be big polluters in coming decades.

It would also impose economic penalties on countries like the US which are already doing quite a lot to reduce their environmental impact.

The US has done and is doing virtually nothing to reduce your carbon footprint, and ought, by rights, be penalised. The average US person has a carbon footprint 20 times the size of the average Indian. Someone has to pay for your indulgence - it should be you.

If /.ers want to rally around a single approach that would be beneficial not just to human related global warming if it exists, but also to energy independence and reduced pollution, do whatever you can to advocate constructing new nuclear reactors here in the US. That is the single best thing we could do at this point.

One of the best sources to track that funding is http://www.exxonsecrets.org/

Just about any high-profile agency or scientist that questions global warming has funding that can be traced to Exxon. Kinda makes you wonder, when one entity is behind all of one side of the argument, and pretty much every other voice is funded by a huge variety of sources.

Looks to me like Exxon is either a misunderstood victim, just trying to get the truth out, or is paying a hell of a lot to convince the rest of us that the ship isn't really sinking while raking in record profits. What do you think?

Well, uh...stretch, a little due dilligence and research shows that David Demming is a contributing member to the NCPA. Now for those of you who might not know what the NCPA is, it is a well-oiled^H^H^H greased ^H^H^H^H funded organization that just happens to receive a chunk of funding from the oil industry. You can read a little more about it here: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? id=55

From my little fact finding mission, this guy's background is questionable, and his statements moreso. But I leave that for the viewer to decide. I think I'll stick with the copious amount of research and the....well...obvious effects that contradict this guy and his fellow compatriots at the NCPA.

The google search also yields some rather...uh... interesting articles. Let's just say that his arguments dealing with unregistered female sex organs and gun ownership were amusing. The guy's got class.

~X~

I hear from a friend with a J.D., working in civil justice, that often lawsuits are a quick way to affect political change when legislation isn't happening.

However, I've got to wonder... Why couldn't California make a case against much more obvious guilty parties like Exxon Mobil? The outrageous deception they're perpetrating deserves far more than a lawsuit.

The organization at the core of all of this is The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). Odd linky which connects them to here.

Ready for the brain-twister? They are pro nuclear energy.

Demonize away!

The other interesting tidbit found here (sorry about the horrid flash link) is that Exxon has moved $12+ million (discoverable) towards anti-global warming organizations. That sounds like a lot -- until you realize they make a billion $ a day ...

Steven Milloy, founder of Junkscience isn't exactly an above-board type of person. I mean he was trying to give you a hint by calling his site "junk science", but I guess that was too subtle. ;)

Steven Milloy, founder of Junkscience isn't exactly an above-board type of person. I mean he was trying to give you a hint by calling his site "junk science", but I guess that was too subtle. ;)

Yes. Now we know that the centerpiece of that summary, the "Mann Hockey Stick", turned out to be a scientific fraud.

The oil companies and right-wing have poured millions for many years into discrediting global warming and environmentalists in general. This has been profusely documented.

If you were looking for a balanced view point on the dangers of tobacco smoking 30 years ago, would you have gone to the cigarette companies or the think tanks they supported? If not, why would you go to the think tanks of oil companies (mainly, if not exclusively, funded by ExxonMobil) today? This is, of course, in reference to climateaudit.org, which seems to be mainly written by Stephen McIntyre, who is funded (albeit indirectly through the George Marshall Institute) by ExxonMobil. If you doubt the veracity of ExxonSecrets.org, feel free to verify it against Exxon's own "giving report".

With regards to Climate Science and Roger Pielke, if you actually look at his publications, you'll find that he does believe that CO2 contributes to significant climate change. He is just a little more agnostic than many of his fellow researchers as to the nature of that climate change. I'm not sure if you want to count him as your ally.

The other author, Carter writes for the Tech Central Science Foundation, which is owned by a DC lobbying firm which received $95K from ExxonMobil.

Real scientists publish in scientific journals. Be ashamed that you can't tell the difference between scientists and "scientific pundits" and a corporate agenda from a scientific agenda.

When you can find scientific journal cites for Carter's junk science, I'll listen to you.

• Bob Carter
• Tim Ball
• Tim Patterson
• Tech Central Station

• Bob Carter
• Tim Ball
• Tim Patterson
• Tech Central Station