Slashdot Mirror
Big Tobacco Funded Anti-Global Warming Messages
An anonymous reader writes, "The UK Guardian is running an excerpt from the new book "Heat" by George Monbiot (to be published later this month) spelling out the network of funding opposing global action against global warming — specifically, limits on human carbon dioxide generation. The excerpt outlines a web of fake citizens' groups and bogus (but authoritative sounding) research institutes designed to convince laypeople that human causation of global warming is scientifically controversial. Not surprisingly, the article notes funding by ExxonMobil. More interesting is the role played big tobacco, tying their attack on the health risks of second-hand smoke to global warming skepticism." From the article: "What I have discovered while researching this issue is that the corporate funding of lobby groups denying that man-made climate change is taking place was initiated not by Exxon, or by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel industry. It was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris."
More than you ever wanted to know about CEI:
Exxon's Cash Pipeline to CEI
I'll admit that I'm a little suspicious of a report like this that meshes so perfectly with all my liberal suspicions of Big Oil and Big Tobacco.
But the "Both sides do it" argument is pretty rediculous. Would some truly argue that the relatively meager lobbies and scientific groups that promote awareness about global warming have the same type of power and persuassion as these mutiti billion dollar profit corporations? Sure both sides point to studies that benefit them. But one side doesn't have to fabricate its science, and isn't backed by monetary interests in the same way the corporations are.
Saying "both sides do it" is like throwing a penny on one side of a scale and a couple of lead bars on the other.
It's in the article.
Global warming is one of the things they wanted to cast doubt about. The problem they were facing was that warnings on second-hand smoke were being taken seriously. The intent was sow a general distrust of scientists, making it appear that that consensus is rare. If they'd limited their focus to only research into second hand smoke, it'd have looked suspicious and Philip Morris's actions would have been fairly obvious. However, a general discrediting of science... well, until this article came out, I wasn't even aware that part of the cause of the Cato/Crichton/"JunkScience.com" axis of uncertainty was the tobacco industry.
I'm waiting to find out how much they paid the International Astronomers Union... ;)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Response to MC by professional climatologist. Summary: He's not right.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Global temperatures have been monitored by satellite since 1979 with the Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) flying on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) TIROS-N series of polar-orbiting weather satellites. Beforehand it was less accurate and relied on regularly recording the weather at various points around the globe. For times before we did that (1800s and earlier) they have to use indirect methods including tree ring counting, ice core sampling, and other such techniques.
I read the internet for the articles.
The key part of the term "Global Warming" is "Global". That is to say that the average temperature of the entire surface of the Earth is increasing. This is, in fact, objectively observable and undisputed (at least in the literature on the subject). As ocean currents and wind patterns are now changing, some places are warming more rapidly, and others cooling -- as predicted. For example, another degree or two will push the Gulf Stream far enough south that the temperature in Northern Europe would be expected to drop to an average of just under 0C. At the same time, however, the 1 degree change in average global temperature would locally increase temperatures in parts of the mideast another 10C.
A popular tactic used by the paid "Global Warming" denial lobby is to concede that global warming is real, but that one of the following is true: the climate is simply following a regular cycle and there's no need for concern (the amount of CO2 and the speed is unprecedented and the effect appears to actually be mitigated by particulate pollutants and accelerating as the pollutants settle out of the atmosphere), or that the effect is not anthropogenic in nature and thus there's nothing we can do about it (it may be too late, but all evidence in the literature points towards anthropogenic causation).
Climatologists are not referring to places with warming trends and ignoring those with cooling trends. They are looking at the whole enchilada and reporting what they see. Lobbyists and gullible press are the only reason anyone thinks otherwise. The literature is very unanimous and exhaustively complete on the subject. From a political perspective there may be two sides or two schools of thought, but not on the scientific side. That argument was settled long ago.
This is part of basic, peer-reviewed science. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and figure they've thought of that already. If they report the number as 330, it's reasonable to guess that it's around 330 +- 10. If you really can't find the uncertainties in the professional articles, email the authors. No offense, but I'd be shocked if you've thought of something they haven't.
The general consensus is that the global temp is up 0.5c +/- .2c. So the warming trend may be as high as .7c and as low as .3c. I can see this, but add to this that the temperature measurements have a posted error correction of +/- .7c we now have a problem. The global warming that may be happening is within the error rate of the temperature measurement. If Microsoft tried to use numbers like this we would tare them apart but the global warming crowd uses them and they are ok?
This is fine, as long as there are lots of measurements. Uncertainties add in quadrature, so we pin down a more narrow confidence level with a great number of measurements.
To those how would point to the chart that shows us warming, they all seem to start around 1880. This is odd as this marks the end of the little ice age, to say that we are warmer now than we were during the little ice age is, well, duh!
The point isn't just that we're warmer now than we've been since the 1880's, but the CO2 levels are the highest they've been in the last 800,000 years, at least. And we've broken through the 200-300 ppm envelope the levels have been in only the last 100 years, so it's the *rate* of increase that is particularly worrisome.
I am sorry, the science seems off and with out solid science to back it up I just can not believe the hype.
Again, and I don't mean any offense, but these seem like simplistic arguments. We might want to be humble enough to assume that these people, most of whom are really smart, and spend their whole professional lives studying just this phenomena, have already considered these things. I'm not advocating a blind appeal to authority, but it's only curteous to assume that the experts in the field carry *some* authoritative weight.
Um, dude, learn some statistics. Smokers have insanely higher rates of lung and heart disease than non smokers. The sample size establishing this has reached the "enormous" level. Smoking is extremely bad for you. Yes, inhaling anything but air is probably bad for you, but nothing anyone inhales with any frequency is close to as bad as tobbaco smoke.