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
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.
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.