Slashdot Mirror
Climate Skeptic Funded By Oil and Coal Companies
Honken writes with a report from The Guardian that "'One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.' This somewhat contradicts that [Harvard researcher Willie] Soon in a 2003 US senate hearing said that he had 'not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received grants from any organisation that had taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.'"
many climatologist on both sides of the discussion are employed by people who take a particular interest in one outcome or another.
So, you found one you don't like, I am quite sure we can find more, there are probably even websites dedicated to this.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
More proof that just because you're a professor or student from Harvard, you aren't instantly a respectable or knowlegeable authority.
---
Heh, how typical.
Always greed.
Never for the good of all..
Also had the Koch bogeyman in there to keep the kids awake at night.
Keep up the good work.
Lying in these kinds of hearings is utterly amoral and can have drastic negative consequences for society.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The article tries to imply that he lied to the senate but then doesn't show any evidence.
that makes this one even wore then admiting he/she worked for or does work for such n such.
I remember when lying to Congress used to be a crime. Now it's just an alternative lifestyle.
Support SETI@home
Not surprising; the main source of critiques that attempt to discredit climate science is the "Heartland Institute," which doesn't state its funding sources, except to say it's funded by "foundations and corporations"... but reading the budget information from Exxon Mobil shows those "foundations and corporations" tend to be fossil fuel companies, and fossil-fuel funded institutes like the American Petroleum Institute.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
String 'im up alongside Bonds.
many climatologist on both sides of the discussion are employed by people who take a particular interest in one outcome or another
Your attempt to muddy the waters aside, one thing is clear: this guy accepted a million dollars to deny reality.
The fact that a sceptic has received grants from Oil companies is somehow notable, but the fact that tax-payers are funding a propaganda operation by the environmental movement is not? Frankly, Greenpeace are complete hypocrites.
Yeah, it was a really shitty thing to do.
Oh no energy, like both sides don't lie. Don't believe the hype, be real live back in a cave MFers!!!! Fight the energy MAN.
A) Either it contradicts or it doesn't
and
2) "some in the past decade" and "none before 2003" can both be true
Was a global warming conspiracy.
I'll take Oil companies, with their straightforward desire for profit, over a megalomaniac with a penchant for happily toppling National currencies in an attempt to remake the global economy.
The politicians who stand to gain power, money and prestige by implementing climate policy.
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, " -- Ottmar Edenhofer, UN IPCC
and voter apathy are the main causes behind this country's approaching decline. This shit needs to stop. This kind of thing was rampant in the US around the late 1800s and the country went through war and economic depression before finally turning itself around. I fear that history is repeating itself, and that nobody who can actually do anything about is bothering to give a fuck. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the country's crumbling infrastructure (physical and digital), and the horrible US economy are all symptoms of those underlying three causes. Take care of those and the sinking ship that is the US would eventually right itself.
shocked to find that gambling is going on in here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME (youtube)
http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Rather than attacking the science, attack the person's source of funding.
many climatologist on both sides of the discussion are employed by people who take a particular interest in one outcome or another.
What do you mean by "both sides"? Really? What funding source were you thinking of that has a financial interest comparable to the trillion dollar profits of the fossil-fuel companies?
That's the party line of the climate-change deniers: "Oh, it doesn't matter that the so-called skeptics are all funded by fossil-fuel companies, because both sides are funded by dirty money."
But, oddly, when there is even a rumor that a climate scientist has received as much as a lunch paid for by a source that is not absolutely spotlessly apolitical, isn't it amazing how the blogosphere lights up with accusations of how climate change is "bought and paid for." (Even when the rumor turns out to be unrelated to actual fact.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
one meeeellion? In a decade?
Get out town, that wouldn't even cover our bar tab for our sales people's trips in a year.
For any decent O&G company, that literally is pennies.
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
And which right wing think tank is sending out that bullshit?
Support SETI@home
bears deficate in woods, pope admits catholic leanings
Was there really any doubt that Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon were full of it?
Here's a thorough debunk of their most infamous paper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo#t=2m00s
i.e. The one skeptics go crazy about how in emails, how other climate scientists said it shouldn't have even been published in the first place.
This.
Instead of 'hey lets figure out what is going on and fix it correctly'. We get taxes? Yelled at and called deniers. It has become a we vs they thing instead of lets find the real problem and fix it (if we can). Follow the money. Every damn time... *BOTH* sides are guilty of it. There shouldnt even be sides here...
Let's but this into another perspective: Do you want that your local policemen get nice presents every day from the local people suspected to be drug dealers/organized crime/... every month. After all, if those suspects were actual criminals the policy would already have arrested them, so it cannot be bad if law officers have a bit more money so they can concentrate on catching criminals a bit more, can it?
And if you do not trust police officers to still be able to do uninfluenced decisions by getting money, why do you think a researcher would be able to?
If you take their money, you will always think twice before publishing something against their interests. You either realize that and have a bad time fighting all the time against that bad feeling or you might not even realize it.
In other words: Your research might still be valuable but totally worthless to decide the things your money-giver has a interest in. And thus you should not lie to other people that you get that money and that your research is thus not suitable for that discussion.
They expect to be paid off in the future.
Are there an equal number of grants going to climate change skeptic research? Yeah, right. Somebody has to fund the opposition.
Even so, the governments have far more money to give than the oil and coal companies, especially when they already collect billions in taxes from those companies to help pay for the research to destroy them.
...than the global warming 'experts' who are being funded by green-energy companies. We already know they are liars because of Climategate, sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me...
I note that Willie H. Soon is also not highly ranked amongst climate science authors. See <http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html>.
See what I mean? You don't want to know about how the other side is funded. You've got your fingers in your ears, so to speak.
Climate fearmongers funded by the governments that stand to gain power.
Big news here.
Oh, you're one of those people who believe that everything is composed of black and white, with no neutral in between, and composed of discreet values.
Similarly, the opposite of rich is poor, so if you're not swimming in your private swimming pool on board your private jet, you're in the streets begging for money.
In other news, scientists confirmed today that water is wet.
Here's a hint: the universities and research agencies that employ most normal scientists get the same amount of money regardless of the findings on anthropogenic climate change. The oil companies who employ all of the prominent ACC skeptics stand to lose billions of dollars if the findings are not a certain way.
Let's put it another way. Acme Pharmaceuticals wants to start selling a new drug. Scientists from universities find that the drug is not safe. Scientists employed by Acme Pharmaceuticals find that the drug is perfectly safe. Given these two pieces of information, would you give this new drug to your children?
This constant "the other side is exactly as bad" argument from conservatives and libertarians is laughable in almost every instance it is used.
So a skeptic was financially supported by like-minded corporate interests? Stop the presses! I look forward to the shocker exposes detailing how climate change evangelists were given grant money (from likeminded sources) to perform more studies which confirmed *their* beliefs. Oh wait--that won't ever happen. Because the academic grant system is pure and unbiased. LMAO.
What *is it* with fuckwits like you?
Greenpeace global revenues in 2010: about 56m euros. Exxon just about pipped Greenpeace there, with an income of 311bn dollars in the same year. So clearly it is Greenpeace who is able to throw money around like billy-o and has an enormous financial stake in the outcome of this debate. Yes, that's absolutely clear.
I have heard this idea before. It assumes that all the climate researchers are somehow in collusion on a vast conspiracy. The problem with your idea is that the top tier universities are full of egotistical bastards who would gladly screw their peers in order to demonstrate that they are smarter than everyone else. These professors tend to do pretty well with grant money and anything that enhances their fame just ensures that the money keeps coming, even though this may be at the expense of others.
Please stop refering to these people as climate 'skeptics'. They are climate 'deniers' - just like holocaust deniers and round earth deniers.
You couldn't guess?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/29/the-log-in-the-eye-of-greenpeace/
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That's why we have to resort to WHO is making a claim and how it's paid for, instead of WHAT is being said.
Climate change? Of course there is climate change. Never in Earth's history, as far as we know, has there ever been a pause in climate change!
Aside from the obvious gains those who have vested interest in alternative energy have what do those scientists who feel global warming is man made have to gain? What are the motives? The flip side is obvious, the fossil fuel industry stands to lose trillions of dollars if anthropogenic climate change is the real deal. I have always been a pragmatist. The logic goes something like this:
1. Everyone knows that fossil fuels are a finite resource whose peak availability may have just passed, is happening now or will happen reasonably soon (decades not centuries, likely)
2. There is a possibility that fossil fuel use is contributing to potentially catastrophic weather pattern shifts on the only habitable and reachable planet we know of in the universe.
3. Since we know this weaning is going to happen sooner of later, why not start (seriously) now.
There is no easy weaning in some industry. Organic solvents aren't going to be replaced by a commercially available synthetic anytime soon. This is important if you like medicine. Next, there aren't any alternative shipping/flight options available on the horizon for commerce. So we need reserve for commercial entities.
Thoughts?
Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
Maybe you can help tell Gore to STFU.
I stopped listening to this totalitarian political hack back when he wanted to force us to let the government have the keys to all of our encryption. Al Gore was the administration's point man in the crypto wars of the 90s, and he wasn't on our side.
Probably the one positive thing about George W. Bush is that he prevented Al Gore from becoming President.
"In addition the American Petroleum insitute (API), which represents the US petroleum and natural gas industries, gave him multiple grants between 2001 and 2007 totalling $274,000".
2011-2001 = 10 years
2001 < 2003
Exactly. But don't bother telling people here. They don't want to know.
It's not oil and coal companies funding lobbying and advertising that raises eyebrows. This is a prominent scientist getting paid a substantial amount of money by these companies. It raises serious questions over his research and his position on global warming. Promoting public policy, whether you think it's appropriate or not, is an entirely different issue.
FTA: "he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001"
From lying poster: "grants and stuff he received in 2005 and later"
You sir are lying trash, climb back into the cesspool that spat you out.
Ah the out-of-context quote, an outdated weapon from the age when it took effort to find the context, like throwing a spear at a tank.
“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
He was saying that environmental policy affects economic policy, and that economic policy has become the sticking point to environmental policy change:
http://www.environmentaltrends.org/single/article/un-climate-talks-and-power-politics-its-not-about-the-temperature.html
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Of course people are interested in how both sides are funded. But as soon as you jump into conspiracy theories you run the risk of losing ears.
Contrast two conspiracy theories:
Exxon funds climate change skeptic. We are talking about a very well known company that is even better known for the damage they have caused to the environment. Regulations around climate change are against their best interests. Plausible conspiracy.
Some agency that noone has even heard of funds an actvist group that noone even knows, but the agency is lead by well known enironmentalists and (get this!) it's done with tax-payer's money. Red flag 1: unrelated information makes the argument immediately suspect. Red flag 2: collusion between two groups that few people have ever heard of makes the argument look concocted. Red flag 3: dropping well known names in relation to one of those groups sounds like an attempt to create legitimacy without actually providing evidence.
So which conspiracy theory do you think that people are going to accept? Really, honestly, truely, deep down inside of you, which conspiracy theory would you accept if you weren't already committed to one? Because the sad fact of the matter is, people like simple relationships that use stuff that they already know. They don't want to get their neurons into a knot trying to understand what someone is saying, and they don't want to spend time researching something to verify it's true.
Exxon just about pipped Greenpeace there, with an income of 311bn dollars in the same year.
Sorry, income != profits. Not even close.
And it still doesn't change the fact that Greenpeace (and many other pro-climate-change groups) is financed by ExxonMobil and BP and "Big Oil". Shall we discount their conclusions and papers as well, since they are obviously financed by groups you suspect of ulterior motives?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The full context is much scarier, but I only wanted to post a quote that got the point across, not the whole thing.
Researchers who are subsidized by public concerns are paid to provide results that may be useful to the public. The grant process is transparent.
Researchers who are subsidized by private concerns are paid to provide results that are useful to the owners. The grant process is opaque.
The perceived interests of active shareholders and executives often do not coincide with the perceived interests of the public at large, ergo private concerns often attempt to hide their role in certain kinds of "research", because the degree of self interest in controlling the results is all too apparent.
Luke, help me take this mask off
I think it strange that research done by ethical people funded by organizations with one vested interest is deemed suspect while research done by ethical people funded by organizations with other vested interests is not.
The environmental community is not without funding issues. They have to cater to their contributors to continue to receive funding. An organization that gathers funding under the auspices that global warming is caused by human activity that published research contrary to that position will not continue to get funding. It is possible that the research is tainted in the same way and for the same reasons as research funded by oil companies.
Even Government funded research funding is not above suspicion. If the research does not agree with the position of the government will the funding continue?
Anywhere that money changes hand the desires of the one giving the money influences the outcome. The only solution I see is to have an independent body that takes money from all contributors and distributes it to researchers. That way researchers are not funded by one side or the other.
I wonder who General Electric and corporations who are knee-deep in building "green technologies" on the government dime are supporting.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
As for carbon-taxes, you can still believe Anthropogenic Global Warming is happening and disagree with the carbon-tax solution. In fact, I've seen experiment that show that, if you present people with arguments that global warming is real and carbon-tax is the solution, and then show a second group of people an argument that global warming is real and nuclear power is the solution, people are more likely to accept the idea of global warming+nuclear power solution. What this says to me is that people aren't making up their minds from the facts of global warming, but they're making decisions about the reality of global warming based on their fears of what happens if they accept it.
I find it interesting that there is a debate on climate change. One group has scientific proof that it is happening and the other has proof that it isn't. What's worse is when millions of non-scientific people defend one side or the other like it is a religion. The truth is, no one can no what the truth is because the subject has become so poluted with special interests and politics. You have all been lied to at some point.
The motivation of a politician aiming to gain power, money and prestige by implementing climate policy runs a poor second to the motivation of someone aiming to maintain or increase the flow of billions of dollars into their corporate and personal coffers. The likes of (former) Senator Evan Bayh demonstrate that while legislating may be good for the ego, the big money is in private industry.
Luke, help me take this mask off
If a bunch of government elites got together to crush my business and get behind a theory that conveniently gives bureaucrats massive amounts of power, I would chip in .0001% of my profits to an alternative point of view.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/genetic/
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Meanwhile in the AGW camp, the same thing is going on
Let's not forget AL Gore is heavily invested in "green" companies and has his own carbon credit company.
I think with the "follow the money" argument, it's a draw.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Because your side has become another religion.
Oh, that is an absolutely priceless rejoinder.
In case you hadn't noticed, Greenpeace is a *nonprofit*. It had a surplus of a mighty 3m euros in 2009, which went into its reserve fund because of course no money is paid out to shareholders. By contrast, 2009 was a shitty year for Exxon, which made only 20bn dollars of net income (that's profit to you, dipshit). That means they made the same amount of profit as Greenpeace's annual surplus about every two hours.
It's a good job we're talking about profits, isn't it? It's clear now that Greenpeace has *much* more financial skin in the game.
As for the notion that Greenpeace is financed by Exxon et al. What? I mean to say, what? Where on earth did you get that idea? This is the age of the interwebs, ya know. You could do a bit of fucking research before spilling bilge on your keyboard. You could provide evidence for outlandish claims.
But the biggest corporations on the planet are it's Governments. Somehow their funding leaves a scientist impartial? The claim of Global Warming has given them new and nearly limitless power. It lets them play in pools of money and influence that our founding fathers never dreamed of... (In their worst nightmares)
If the findings from your science indicate the skeptics are correct, and you aren't smart enough to shred them, you may as well shred your career.
Weather Climate Expert will calls for you to be de-certified, forget ever getting another grant, and hold on to your tenure, etc...
The Hockey Stick graph was an exposed fraud. But much like Dan Rather's decades old MS Word Doc on Bush - some people believe it's fake but accurate.
Ahhh, and they say religion is on the decline.
And then comes the research grants and tenure from Rainbow Hug Community College, the book deal, the lecture circuits, it's all gravy.
Extremes attract extremists. The only voices that get heard now are those screaming "We all gonna die!" and "Nothing is happening!". Easily excitable people pick the extreme that excites them, and treat the subject like Jerry Springer. And the world keep turning.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Sorry, this isn't on Drudge with a siren graphic, so it must not be true.
The fact that this got modded down "troll" shows exactly the kind of groupthink wall that anyone hits for daring to question global warming or the motives of its evangelists (and make no mistake, these *are* evangelists, with a sermon to preach). Someone questions the motives of a skeptic who gets funded by the oil industry and that's great. But someone responds with the inconvenient truth that the proponents of global warming often have their own funding sugar-daddies too and he's a troll who must be silenced.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
...tarily,
Where else could they get funding?
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
I was just wondering about the word choice. Why "skeptic" instead of "denier" or just the neutral climate "scientist"?
I guess "flamebait" now means "intersting" but provocatively so.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Of the prizes Hansen was awarded, only the Sophie Prize could even come close to originating from a "pressure group".
I suspect a number of these were awarded not just for his research, but also for setting the example of sticking by it while the Bush Administration was busy quashing the results. A classic of the Bush "climate doctrine" was a quote from NASA Administrator Griffin to NPR, to the effect that we shouldn't dick with climate change, because our past and current climate may not be the best one for humans.
Why, it was brilliant. A civilization adapted to thousands of years of gradual climate changes? Why not run a little experiment to see if it's even better adapted to an utterly different climate?
I don't think I've ever wanted to use my radio to reach through time and space as badly as that day. It's enough to make me wonder if he actually defended a dissertation to earn that PhD.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Doing this sort of thing is called "the Tabbaco Strategy". Read "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" Naomi Oreskes (Author), Erik M. M. Conway (Author) http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309463389&sr=8-1
D. E. (Steve) Stevenson, Ph.D. Emeritus Associate Professor,School of Computing,Clemson University.
Climate scientists are funded by the money they scare up, I mean, solicit for their own expertise to fight the process they are experts in. And yet we don't apply the same standards of conflict of interest to them because they are on the 'right side'?
This message brought to you by the Al Gore "maybe I can still save face, my ass, some little reputation, but not my career" fund,
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
something is obviously wrong does not make it so. While it's hard for people of more limited intelligence to comprehend, there are a lot of things that can be researched. If research subject number one doesn't pan out you can always go to numbers two through 568 million.
Just for reference:
BP is funding research into “ways of tackling the world’s climate problem” at Princeton University to the tune of $2 million per year for 15 years
BP is funding an energy research institute involving two other US universities to the tune of $500 million – the aim of which is “to develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment”
ExxonMobil has donated $100 million to Stanford university so that researchers there can find “ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming”
There has been over $80 BILLION spend, from the US taxpayers alone, to research the affects of climate change. And when a single researcher is paid to investigate the link beteen the Sun and Climate instead of CO2 and Climate, it suddenly is a huge friggen big deal?
How about all the money that has been spent for the CO2 Theory compared to any other? Greenpeace has gotten tens of millions from BP alone, far more then this one researcher.
The big question is: Why the Billions spent on reseach on just one theory alone has few complaints from you guys, but any money, fractions, spent on any other research that might be counter to that is bad? Isn't trying to prove a theory important any more? How about researching external modifiers? And don't the people getting millions (like the head of Greenpeace and the related groups who do research for the IPCC with definative motives) have similar ($$$) motivation to promote their theories? If it works that way for one guy, wouldn't it work the same for an organization that has a mission statement that promotes AWG theory?
Big Oil are all large donors to research Pro-AGW. To the tune of over a billion - yet when they spend a few million just trying to understand some of the other side you guys act horrid.
Almost all the research money on climate is in for Pro-AGW, and hence, you will hear the AGW side. If equal money was spent on "skeptic" views I think we would understand allot more then we do now. Even looking at the IPCC, they know so little in the argument for solar forcing, aerosals, the affects of the oceans, long term trending. This is a very young science - far from understood and only settled in the minds of some, not in the reality of the process.
But don't think for one minute that Greenpeace is motivated by their own interests, or that Big Oil buys off anybodies opinion. Or else Greenpeace/Universities/HadleyCRU would all just be shills for Big Oil, 300 times over.
Maybe they are! See, Greenpeace drives up the price of Oil, so they can make more profit... it makes as much sense as most of these comments.
but not expected.
Oil companies are slimy. Hasn't anyone else noticed this Exxon commercial that's been showing up on Hulu lately... the one where they talk about strides being made to improve our domestic oil economy but do so by touting their oil sands project in Canada, our largest oil importer? http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/news_ad_us11_oilsands.aspx
Glad I could help.
Oh, you're one of those people who believe that everything is composed of black and white, with no neutral in between, and composed of discreet values.
Similarly, the opposite of rich is poor, so if you're not swimming in your private swimming pool on board your private jet, you're in the streets begging for money.
Oh, the irony!
Bloom County had it spot on back in 1982.
"The earth isn't round, either. Yep! It's shaped like a burrito!"
There's reality, and then there's... somewhere else.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
My thought is that oil is too important to our material culture (manufacturing, agriculture, industrial chemistry and so on) to be stuck in vehicles or power plants. If people think the worst that's going to happen is the price of a tank of gas goes up in 30 or 40 years, they are living in a fantasy land.
We need to wean ourselves and fast, AGW or no AGW, because the shit is going to hit the wall and we're allowing private commercial interests to threaten our civilization for short-term profits. Irreversible climate change will merely be the coup de gras as the economy spends decades trying to get viable energy solutions working to replace the fossil fuel base it can no longer use.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is the real "climategate". Of the emails stolen from CRU that the best climate skeptics could do was a couple of quotes out of context in the the roughly 70mb of emails. I even downloaded the torrent to see for myself*. This was heralded as proof of the climate change hoax. It was not, rather it proved everything was legit.
THIS is worthy of the title Climategate, the real scandal is in the millions spent or trying to seed doubt and stall planet-saving policy. (After initial expenditure, hords of useful idiots and wackjobs take over - they are desperate for something to fight since the cold war, there are no longer commies under their beds).
Once again the data doesn't support what the deniers claim. Once again, caught red handed, lying for money.
Deniers: Please please present examples of scientists caught out doing false science for money from whoever has a vested interest in saving the world rather than wrecking it for short term profit, I dunno... EV battery company?
*(In actual fact the volume of emails showed nothing untoward, just genuine scientists doing their usual thing).
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
What have the industrial giants achieved in this world in their lust for money?
What have politicians achieved in their lust for power?
You name some industrial giants.
I'll name Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan, Hitler and Pol Pot. They didn't do it for the money.
Here's a question for you: Is climate change happening?
Climate change is always happening. The pertinent question is whether it's being significantly effected by human activities and, if so, what is the extent of this change, is it a threat, and what can and should be done about it.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
How is that a lie? In order to sell research, the results of the research must be, potentially, important. If you write a report, and it says "nothing much is happening, and there's no reason to change anything" how can you go on to say "this is important research and it needs more funding". That's not to say that reports never reach such conclusions, just that after they do, you don't see continued funding. It's not a comsparicy theory, or a lie, or a accusation, it's just how it works. That's why it's important for the energy companies to fund the research themselves, otherwise it won't realistically get funded.
Also, whining about the source of the funding is bullshit. If the results of the research is bogus, you should be able to point to that. All the money comes from somewhere, complaining that it came from oil companies does not, in itself, discredit the research. If you have research that is clearly fraudulent, and you see that it was funded by someone interested in the results, that should discredit the researcher. But you can't go backwards and say "the money came from oil companies, so that discredits the researcher, therefore his work is not credible" that is a garden variety ad-homonym attack.
That's kinda a "Who's who," list of big environmental orgs in the United States.
If, as all did at one time, you lived your life out under the sun, you would know from study the effects of the sun. Yet for some now doing studies in retrun for grants in air-conditioned buildings, the sun does not matter. yet some say otherwise http://www.solticeproject.org/
We get it. Help, help, you're being repressed. All of these Big Environment funding sources picking on the poor little Big Oil skeptics is really tough to watch.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
It is quite a scary statement completely with context, in fact even more damning, which is why I thanked the other poster for posting the whole context, not the partial context you posted, quoted from someone else.
When acid rain was a concern there were skeptics who doubted the cause of acid rain or whether it was really a bad thing, and I'm sure many of them were funded by big companies. When smog was a concern, there were plenty of skeptics who were probably being funded by Oil and Coal companies. When it was thought that tobacco might be causing lung cancer, there were skeptics funded by the Tobacco companies.
The list is endless, there is no shortage of weasels who will pose as an expert and say anything you want for a sum of money, this is no big surprise.
But, while the weasel has the excuse that they were paid to say nonsense, what excuse do the people who believe the skeptics have? Is there some type of intellectual trait missing from their makeup that prevents them from seeing patterns of repeated lies from big companies? I've know some otherwise fairly intelligent people who believe every lie uttered by a certain political party. Any kind of reasoning was useless, it felt like I was debating religion, and you know haw useless that is!
The statement was not meant to be factual.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
That nobody mentions the BILLIONS of dollars given to THOUSANDS of scientists paid to find GlobalWarming(TM) in the first place. We have the emails; we have people stepping down because they FAKED THE DATA.
Why should it be a big deal when ONE guy acts as a mouthpiece and gets paid the usual amount to stand up against this hoax?
Seriously: Science is not being paid to assume a certain way. That's called propaganda.
Let's go back to using proof and duplication; humans are nowhere NEAR learning a 100-years-to-come climate when they can't get a forecast 1 MONTH out.
Or, in this case, can have positive consequences depending on where you live. Canada for example is expected to have significant benefits from global warming over the rest of this century, due to things like the opening of the northwest passage allowing new shipping lanes in the arctic and exploiting the arctic's natural resources, as well as (what is more important in the longer term) an increase in arable land due to melting of the permafrost which raises the country's capacity for farming as well as livable land for development....
If the deniers were trying to make the case that there are benefits to climate warming, it wouldn't bother me in the last. That's a defensible position-- not one that the green lobby likes, of course, but nevertheless a plausible case to make. It's the ones saying "It's a hoax! The scientists are corrupt! It's a fraud!" that I object to.
...I do find it amusing that the countries that worked hardest to defeat international accords to limit greenhouse emissions were Canada, Russia, and Norway. But it's probably just a coincidence: these are also three countries that have large fossil-fuel reserves, and hence very large political lobbies for the fossil-fuel industry.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Yes, they also gave him $247,000 in grants between 4,050,756 BCE and 2007 CE.
How does I understood sample set?
-1 Disagree, lol
Well this is science. In science you can't deny anything that has evidence, otherwise you're in the wrong profession.
Now if you look at the definition:
"Noun
skeptic (plural skeptics)
Someone who habitually doubts beliefs and claims presented as accepted by others, requiring strong evidence before accepting any belief or claim."
He is simply stating that there is not enough evidence. If the term was "denier" it'd mean "there's a ton of evidence but the guy is sticking his fingers in his ears and going 'la la la la' ".
Context, my dear fellow, context is key. If you're gonna list politicians, list some that are contemporaries of the industrialists in their native land. Climate change is an issue now, not then. Otherwise, I might as well compare David Koch against the mayor of Bumfuck, Wherever.
A more pertinent example would be to pit Putin against his oligarchs, or the Central Committee of the CCP against the (mostly state-controlled) Chinese industrial elite.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Dunno about the others, but Greenpeace make it very clear that they never accept donations from any company no matter how large or small. In fact, they don't even accept payroll giving.
It is hard to estimate the amount of money that is being poured into climatology DUE to the current alarmist hysteria. All sorts of projects from within universities of from NGOs depend crucially on maintaining the alarmist spirit.
Side note: back in the 80ies, the current alarm was not global warming but global cooling. Though I lived at the wrong side of the Iron Curtain some info from the West still managed to leak through the curtain and, yes, the scare of the day was global cooling. End of side note.
http://www.pdfernhout.net/basic-income-from-a-millionaires-perspective.html
There I outline a case for why, in an industrialized information age 21st century society, rich people should support systematic wealth distribution (like a "basic income") as in their own best interests.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
It isn't as though they guy could get funding from Greenpeace with the types of conclusions that he is coming up with.
Also NSF isn't really about funding studies that are critical of climate change.
If his methodology is sound, it should not matter what the funding source is for any research.
i dont know if you have ever visited a wing of a school named after a business man, but there are tons of them.
and 'endowed chairs', and donated computer labs, and so forth and so on.
not to mention all of the projects that professors work on outside of school, you can search their CVs .
Remember when Slashdot used to be only geeky science types? Where did all these pointy haired plebeians come from?
Now, and throughout history, money isn't necessarily the great motivator. For individuals, the lust for power or the spread of one's ideology has historically been the great motivator for the major world changes, and I gave examples. Nobody who was simply lusting for money has done as much as they have.
Now we have the politicians supporting the ideologies of globalization and socialism (redistribution of wealth), leveraging climate change to further their causes. We have politicians staking their climbs to power and their legacies on pushing climate change. This is just a more modern instance of Mao and Stalin, those driven by ideology and the lust for power.
True, to a lesser extent we do have companies who stand to gain by climate change policies, and the politicians who are involved with those companies in order to gain. But that's chump change compared to the billions flowing into the climate change industry from governments.
Contrast all of that to some companies who get to spend their money to combat climate change theory, after billions have already been confiscated by their governments in order to promote it.
This guy only got $100k/year for his research? That's less than Al Gore gets for a single speech.
the problem is not always about denial.
what policy will save the planet? if the United States cut its carbon emissions by 50% tomorrow, it would have absolutely zero effect on the future of global warming. The Communist Party of China is not going to stop building coal fired power plants, or keeping around old, inefficient manufacturing processes, because they make tons of money off of it. In fact, they will build more of them, faster, and US manufacturers will move every last slip of production there, overnight.
You want to have China do something? Fine, good luck with that. A guy who ran a website about the poisoned baby-milk scandal got several years in prison recently. If they do that to someone who complains about the state producing poisoned baby milk, I wonder how they would treat someone who complains about the state producing too much Co2?
Then there are dozens of other countries in similar boats. Dictatorships who make tons of money off of fossil fuels. Passing a carbon tax in the United States would do nothing to them.
The 'carbon trading' system is going to be run by the same geniuses who run the Credit Default Swap market and the CDO market, not to mention the Catastrophe Bonds market and the Longevity Swaps market. They not only caused the Great Recession, they are also the geniuses who jacked the price of oil and food up by several times in 2008, causing world wide food riots and in some places mass malnutrition and starvation. That's who is going to be in charge of your carbon trading system.
So good luck.
I work in climate science, and we get paid millions by the government (through research funding). Our careers depend on it. We have a vested interest too. Let's just have an open and honest debate based on the facts. It doesn't matter that this guy gets paid - we all do.
Because so far in most cases the way to "prevent/reverse man-made climate change" is "well, just make it too expensive to pollute" and "let's trade carbon credits!"
Guess who's interested in trading? Organizing an exchange with some fees to come with it? Help companies to make "the most" out of credits companies would get for free via assistance of a broker? Compensate for "rigid requirements" with wonders of free market?
Yeah. And, as price of pollution credits goes up, so will the fees.
Instead of making a non-monetized restriction on pollution and regulations that reflect reality, everyone seems to be completely certain that regulation has to include an exchange and stupid across-the-board unobtainable (without trading) goals.
I think the primary problem is not the climate change, but the amount of entities that want to earn easy money on proposed solutions.
Hyperom.com
The "polluters" give much more money to Climate Alarmists than skeptics - why isnt that front page news? ...
Excerpts from http://climate-change-theory.com/ ...
FALLACY IN GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY: The GHG theory appears to consider only heat (actually photons of electromagnetic radiation) coming from space. Some get through the clouds and heat the earth, or get reflected. Others are also sent into the atmosphere. These photons that go up from the surface have varying frequencies and only some of them will be emitted back to earth by COmolecules. There will always be some getting through to space. However, the theory claims that some of those that return will enter the crust and warm it - probably just the first few centimetres. Yes they will, but if the crust gets warmer it will emit more back than it would otherwise have done, and some of those will get through to space. Each time the process is repeated some more photons will escape. So the process is slowed down a bit, but given that the photons travel at the speed of light, there is plenty of time all through each night for lots of return trips. The main point is that, by the end of the night, the top few centimetres will cool down to the same equilibrium temperature that they would otherwise have reached anyway. This is because, as we have seen, there is in fact a lot more heat flowing through from the Earth's core, and it has been escaping to space for the life of the Earth. It is the rate of flow of this heat which determines the equilibrium temperature, and that depends on the core temperature. To draw an analogy, think of a lake with an inlet between it and the ocean. Water from a heavy unending inland storm represents the heat from the Earth's core. The ocean represents space, the inlet is the atmosphere and the lake is the outer few centimetres of the crust, its level representing the temperature of that crust. High tide represents a sunny day, and low tide the night. At high tide (daytime) some water will flow up the inlet, raising the level of the lake, but at low tide (night) both the water from the rain and the extra water that had come in from the ocean will flow back out to sea until the level of the lake lowers to that of the ocean. Adding COmay make the inlet perhaps 1% or 2% narrower, but there is still plenty of time for all the water to escape. What we are adding is a drop in the bucket. The lake will not dry up because of the unending inland storm: if there were no heat coming from the Earth's core there would never have been human life on this planet.
1. THE 60 YEAR CYLE: Nicola Scafetta and John Dodds are not the only ones to have observed the 60 year cycle. Mathematical statistical analysis of the data confirms its existence. John Dodds explained why it is due to variations in the gravitational energy from planets (Footnote 2) leading to irregularities in the pattern. These irregularities help to confirm the existence of the cycle because, when several nodes match with a high statistical probability the evidence is very compelling. Furthermore, application of the 60 year cycle predicted the maximum (1998-2000) above the long term 900 year cyclical trend. The IPCC model did not predict such and, in fact, I believe it will soon be able to be disproved by its failure to do so because there will probably soon be statistically significant variance (from their trend) commencing in 2003.
2. WHY THE PLANETS CAUSE CYCLES: Why are temperatures on Earth apparently following cyclical patterns that correlate with certain orbital events of the moon and the planets, primarily Jupiter, Saturn and to a lesser extent Venus? Consider, firstly, the effect of gravitational energy which the Earth receives from the moon. It pulls ocean waters forming tides and ocean currents. Recent research into wave generators shows that these could easily supply all of Australia's power requirements three or four times over - and that's from just a minute proportion of the w
How many governing parties all over the world (on national and state level, where applicable) would rather that AGW wasn't true? For example here are the Utah republicans.
So how do you get funding if you think you have something which would show that AGW wasn't happening, or would be offset by some other effect, or just global warming but not anthropogenic? Apply for research money from the state.
And if due to some bizarre conspiracy that's not possible in your state - try in any other industrialized country of the world.
I have no reason to believe what you are saying is true. I can find web sites that say Anthony Watts is on meth and funded by the mafia. You shouldn't believe that, either.
Support SETI@home
Can't beat em, slander em. Both sides.
No, YOU stop referring to "these people" as anything. The first step in character assasination/villification is to give your opponent a perjorative label. You know, nigger, towel head, hajji, gook, krauts, kike, etc. Such behavior has no place in scientific debate. Just because someone has a different interpretation of the data does not mean that they are on the same level as Nazi sympathisers. Face the facts. People on your side of the fence has lost all semblance of scientific method and decorum. You have become zealots, both by the secular and religious definitions. You could not tolerate heretical views and seek to discommunicate the unbelievers. Step back and re-examine your thoughts and actions.Are you really holding your views because you believe and truly understand the hard data or are you just a Believer.
If you happen to be without a spare Earth, you do have other options!
The most obvious way that comes to mind is that the scientific theory of Global Climate Change depends on the validity of the Greenhouse effect. The lynch-pin of the greenhouse effect is that some gasses, like carbon dioxide for instance, absorb and re-emit (a scattering effect) radiation in the infrared band of the electromagnetic spectrum. This much has been experimentally verified under laboratory conditions.
Therefore to falsify AGW: Simply demonstrate that carbon dioxide and methane do not have the greenhouse gas properties described above*.
*You will probably want to consult with the climatology journals to get a more accurate and complete description of the properties of greenhouse gasses.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
Please, this is getting a bit ridiculous.
First, it doesn't matter who funds what. If it's the truth, it's the truth. If they're peddling a lie, then no amount of money will be able to cover it up or pass it off in the long run. That's the point of science: the results of a study should be reproduceable, the data should be public, and everything cross-checked by skeptics. This claim of "oil money funding" is always thrown around to discredit anyone who contradicts the warmist claims, usually without any of you even looking at what the research says in the first place. If you have the truth on your side, you shouldn't be worried about skeptics - you should welcome them - and you shouldn't be trying to disqualify information based on source instead of content. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, regardless of who the manufacturer is.
Second... a million dollars is chump change in the business. The pro-global warming side of the debate is fueled by HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS, in subsidies, grant money, patents, and all other manner of financial incentive. To sit and pretend that one side is clean and pure in this debate is ignorant and deceptive.
Third... too many of you keep dismissing ClimateGate as just a bunch of "out-of-context quotes from emails". There's more in the emails than just those quotes that is damning. The fact that the entire email archive was a FOIA request, that was being locked away doesn't seem to bother any of you. And this was just the the info from one research facility and a handful of key players... to think that other damning stuff elsewhere cannot/won't be found is ludicrous. But the real point - and I'm quite honestly surprised that the programmers in the slashdot community haven't noticed more - is the FORTRAN programs included in the FOIA archive. They clearly are written to "massage data". You can literally run zero data through them, and get a warming curve. The programs were designed to fabricate results, and you can take the raw data in, and get the warmist data out. Garbage in, garbage out. You can quote emails out of context, you can argue about sourcing, but you can refute what the programs do. It's dishonest... and to reduce this to an episode of misquoting is just playing along.
Fourth; this is a corruption of the entire scientific process... doesn't this bother anyone? All these "peer reviewed" papers (especially the IPCC ones) - are all reviewed by the same peers, who review each other's stuff. The IPCC itself is a political organization that filters out all the reports that don't support it's beliefs. In many cases, we've also seen reports created by Greenpeace and other environmental groups out of wholecloth, with no science behind them at all.
This isn't science anymore. This is faith. This is religion.
where MMGL = man-made global warming theory
From a respected environmentalist who decided to look at the other side of the issue http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71,
or see the (very well reviewed) book here: http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315
In summary, top scientists in all the respected areas of climate science (see the second link for a listing) have expressed serious doubts about man-made global warming theory, and have been largely ignored (or attacked) for expressing their scientific doubts.
While money and prestige are always motivators in the actions of human beings - scientists included - it should be noted here as well that over a trillion dollars have gone to funding MMGL research, with the implicit implication being that the "science" will support it. Related, it should also be noted that the worlds largest banks have billions or trillions to gain by carbon tax or carbon trading schemes, and that said banks are not well-known for their integrity, as well exposed by Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi.
I have no problem with conflict of interest being exposed here, I would hope that the conflicts are exposed on both sides, however.
This criticism isn't applied uniformly. Somehow getting funding from these guys taints everything they do regardless of whether they publish verifiable data. Yet we don't apply the same standard to say, "news" outlets that contribute 85% to one political party. Where else might these standards be conveniently brushed under the rug?
I suspect if you dig deep enough, you'll find some evidence of this in one form or another and to varying degrees for every single scientist in existence. Good science can be verified.
Not against. As noted, this is about political ideology, the desire for globalism and wealth redistribution. Climate change is only a mechanism, a fear that can be leveraged to accomplish their goals, which admittedly have little to do with the environment.
He said in 2003 that he hadn't received money.
He said in 2011 that he had.
Perhaps he was paid between 2003 and 2011?
The problem is the idea of objective research. It is nearly impossible especially with something that has political consequences. What do politicians love above all? Power over other people. So public grants will tend to go to things that can lead to a justification for expanding politions power.
The way much of this climate research is done would never be allowed in medical trials. They have acknowledged researchers bias and have taken steps to blind researchers who are doing the analysis of the data.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
I keep hearing people talk about all this power politicians are trying to amass to themselves. If this were so, the US would be in lockstep with the Kyoto participants. Yet, somehow, they don't have any more power than in '01.... save what they gave the US Administration to deal with a security scare.
Follow the money. Once you get past the Medicare, Social Security, or DoD budgets, you're looking at jack squat in Federal funding. The real money is with the top 1%, and politicians who cater to their wants... such as no cap gains or estate taxes, minimal income taxes, and no obstructions to their ability to externalize the costs to their business. And any fossil fuel company is externalizing a boat load of costs, and you, me, we get to keep paying for it. Brilliant.
Luke, help me take this mask off
See what I mean? You don't want to know about how the other side is funded. You've got your fingers in your ears, so to speak.
What exactly is "the other side" here? We have scientists funded by big oil, and you counter that with who's giving money to Greenpeace? I don't even want to know where your fingers are.
Fandroids hate facts.
The log in the eye of Greenpeace: http://goo.gl/60vU8 Greenpeace puts the "green" in blackmail and extortion. There's no business like the imminent doom business . . . and has been so for millennia "According to a May 2011, report to Congress by the US General Accountability Office, the total Federal Government funding for climate change from 1993 to 2010 amounts to US $106.7 Billion. This does not include the revenues lost to the Federal Government for special deductions and tax credits (including grants in lieu of tax credits) of $16.1 Billion. These bring the total to $122.8 Billion." Funds that could have been spent instead on real science and technology. Claims that scientists who question the global warming dogma are in the pay of so-called Big Oil are, by comparison, laughable.
Your linked article does NOT state that Exxon funded any of those organizations. It does state that BP contributed to them, as part of an initiative to "green" the company.
It goes on to make a big fuss over the salaries of executives at environmental organizations, and various government funding of same. But the dollar amounts are insignificant compared to the amounts spent by ExxonMobil on various climate change deniers.
On the while, the linked article is merely a feeble attempt to smear conservation organizations. Classic propaganda.
I have to disagree. Politicians are using Global warming as a grab for power, scientists & academics are using it as a grab for funding. The entire situation is hyper politicized.
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
Norway is even further north than Canada, we have _very_ little flat land at low elevations close to the ocean, and we get pretty much all our electricity from hydro-electric plants.
We will still get badly hurt by increasing global temperatures:
The first result of a temperature rise is a large increase in the amount of severe weather, something which you could argue have already started. In the US that means longer and much more severe tornado seasons, in Norway we get severe river flooding from melt water (both snow and glaciers) combined with heavy rain periods.
Yes, our agricultural growing season will increase, but with only 2.7% potentially arable land, this really doesn't make much difference.
Terje
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
I'd argue that the pertinent question is indeed the latter part, namely, is it a threat and what can we do about it. We need to understand the impact as well as the cause(s).
And as you said, the climate is always changing, it's a chaotic system that's influenced by a lot of factors and it itself influences a lot of other systems, denying that there IS climate change is absurd.
If one set of research turns out not to be research (Wegman's paper, for example) done by unethical people (Soon, who has factually definitively lied, for example) funded by organisations with a vested interest (Fossil fuel industry wants to continue to sell fossil fuels) whilst you have other research (Hansen's 1988 paper for example) done by ethical people (Mann for example) and funded by governments who have no vested interest in showing AGW (e.g. Bush Administration).
The greenpeace paper is because there aren't any science papers on what's happening to ice in the Himalayas. Just like the section on how a manganese mine works wasn't a researched paper but the report of a mining manager (and you haven't heard any complaints about that, have you).
YOUR hypothesis is that there is no AGW. Therefore you should show that the production of CO2 from humans and the other effects of mankind on the planet overall have had no effect on the climate.
Since CO2 NATURALLY causes warming when it increases (just like it does when humans don't produce it), then it will cause warming when humans do it. CO2 doesn't know it came from human activity.
YOUR hypothesis is there is no AGW.
Prove it.
What is it that you are disagreeing to? That there are plenty of governmental institutions who'd be more than happy to fund non-AGW research? Can you make that plausible somehow?
Name one with sufficient funning.
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
So I suppose this guy's research is supposed to be tainted by $1mil from oil companies.
Do you suppose that the $billions from governments, bent on new ways to tax and control, carries no taint to the research of government scientists?
But among those who aren't that I've known who have basic English skills can comprehend the words saying it has little to do with the environment anymore.
It's all about politics now, power, ideology. Money's in there too, and environment is dead last.
.I do find it amusing that the countries that worked hardest to defeat international accords to limit greenhouse emissions were Canada, Russia, and Norway.
Of these three countries, which one hasn't ratified the Kyoto Protocol yet? Right, the fourth - USA! USA!
Fandroids hate facts.
is anything to judge the UN by, then 'carbon reduction' treaties at the UN will be not only corrupt, but completely dishonest.
because the only thing worse than no regulation, is bad & ineffective regulation... as we saw with prohibition, the drug war, the TSA, and many many other examples.
Give me a fucking break. I already named Utah. How many state governments are run by republicans?
You can't think of *one* which would provide funding? Are you serious?
You need to stop taking a break, from reality. You are either a complete moron or have gone so far off the left side of the political spectrum that you think Nancy Pelosi is a Fox News spokesman. /facepalm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/01/george-monbiots-denial-fantasy-tweet/
About an hour after this story was posted, on his Twitter feed, Monbiot recognizes his error.
And those peddling the "Merchants of Doubt" book as proof, you should really check your facts.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/oreskes-clumsy-venomous-smear-campaign-busted/
"The great Fred Singer takes the time to explain why Naomi Oreskes is a scientifically inept and a poor historian. Her famous claim of a scientific consensus based on 900 papers missed more than 11,000 that should have been included. Her grasp of science is so poor she isn’t familiar with the pH scale, thinks Beryllium is a heavy metal, mistakenly assumes that CO2 is trapped in the troposphere, and climate models can predict forest fires and floods. Embarrassingly, Oreskes doesn’t understand the difference between reactive oxygen and radioactive oxygen.
Armed with cherry picked distortions she sets about maliciously impugning upstanding senior scientists with distinguished records in science, and years of service. Unlike a professional historian she hasn’t even interviewed any of them to find out if the information she promoted was correct. Sadly Singer is the only one still with us to point out the flaws.
Years from now when their contributions are still recognized, Oreskes will be but a footnote in history classes of how poor research and largely baseless innuendo were used to serve a groupthink meme and feed a hate campaign against some of our best and brightest. No humility. No respect. No real effort to find the truth.
- Jo Nova"
Both extremists sides of the global warming debate should really do some fact checking as this point scoring game only damages the credible research going towards better understanding our planet's climate.
A peer reviewed admission that “global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008 – Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al. (2011)
Article and comments on wattsupwiththat.com:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did-not-rise-dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/
PDF:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-201102467.pdf