[The following links were sent to me by someone who believes the issue of Global Warming is still up for debate -- these are links she sent to prove, as she says, "In all fairness, 10s of 1,000s of climatologists and other scientists reject the concept of global warming as presented in Al Gore's movie." I've followed her links by my research into who they are, who's funding them, etc.]
I repeat here a small list of Exxon-Mobil funded 'scientists' that appear over and over again in the 'literature' that is supposed to prove Global Warming is either not happening or is not caused by human activity, as reported by Mother Jones News. Every denier I've researched has been shown to be on the payroll of corporate interests (mostly oil and gas), is not an expert in the appropriate field, has done questionable to downright dishonest 'science,' if any, or has in some other way disqualified themselves from being taken seriously. According to Wikipeda, there seem to be far less than 10's of thousands of scientists who deny global warming -- they list anywhere from eleven-a couple of dozen ("Only scientists with a record of scholarship are included, and they must have been making specific statements, not merely participating in a poll or survey of opinion. This list is intended to be comprehensive, but is likely to be incomplete."). Here is a partial list:
SALLIE BALIUNAS, a Harvard-Smithsonian Institute astrophysicist, has, along with colleague
WILLIE SOON, been giving deniers scientific cover since the mid-1990s. They began by claiming solar effects could account for the rise of the global thermostat. After that theory was debunked, Baliunas and Soon wrote a paper-partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute-for Climate Research that claimed that the 20th century hasn’t been all that warm. Their conclusions have been praised as the epitome of “sound science” by deniers, including Sen. James Inhofe. The journal’s editor, meanwhile, said the paper should never have been published. Baliunas and Soon are each connected to at least four ExxonMobil-funded groups.
PAUL DRIESSEN: ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least five.
PATRICK MICHAELS: Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least seven.
STEVEN MILLOY [of JunkScience.com]: Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least five."
S. FRED SINGER: A godfather of global warming denial, Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least seven.
http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p686.htm --
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) ... is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research.
[more on them below]
from: SourceWatch.org
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052406F --
Tech Central Station.com is a news site associated with the Tech Central Science Foundation, which received $95,000 funding from Exxon-Mobil; Baliunas is a commentator; Soon is the science director; and Milloy is a contributing writer. Run by former FoxNews.com editor and hosted by an AEI fellow.
TCS is published by the DCI Group, "a prominent Washington public affairs firm specializing in P.R., lobbying, and so-called 'Astroturf' organizing, generally on behalf of corporations, GOP politicians, and the occasional Third-World despot." Corporate funders of Tech Central Station include AT&T, Avue Technologies, The Coca-Cola Company, General Motors Corporation, Intel, McDonalds, Merck, Microsoft, Nasdaq, PhRMA, and Qualcomm (Tech Central Station website).
from: ExxonSecrets.org
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm --
The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, [the petition was designed to give] some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the [National Academy of Sciences]' peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers, [and had nothing] to do with the National Academy of Sciences. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.) The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."
Robinson's paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. "As atmospheric CO2 increases," it stated, "plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally." As a result, Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener planet. [excuse me while my head explodes - Marilyn]
from: SourceWatch.org
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/ --
National Center for Policy Analysis has received $390,900 from ExxonMobil since 1998. Adjunct Scholar, S. FRED SINGER: Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least seven. Founded in 1983, NCPA acts as an organizer for other conservative groups as well as conducting its own free-market oriented public policy analysis on issues such as health care, social security, fiscal policy, and the environment.
NCPA has an "E-Team" that analyzes environmental policy. The global warming "experts" on the team are climate skeptics who opposed the Kyoto Protocol and continue to oppose any regulation of greenhouse gasses.
from: ExxonSecrets.org
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2006/20060623155710.aspx --
a branch of the right-wing Media Research Center. "...it is [Brent] Bozell's Media Research Center that stands out as the right's preeminent media cop. Bozell is a Republican operative with credentials earned in George Bush's 1988 presidential campaign. The nephew of William F. Buckley, he headed the Conservative Victory Committee that year. He is also connected to the Political Club for Growth, a network of conservative and libertarian activists and groups sympathetic to cutting taxes and shrinking government.
What Bozell and others perceive as liberal bias often means presenting information about government help for the poor, the homeless, the weak, and so on -- information that conflicts with the objectives of the right."
from: MediaTransparency.org
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=357 --
Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. ... Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.
from: SourceWatch.org
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.htm --
I could spend a lot of time debunking this 'article' point-by-point. I'd rather not waste my time, but really, apply your critical thinking skills and question each statement as you read it -- I think you'll see what I mean. Or see below for more info on them.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200409%5CNAT20040915c.html --
"The Cybercast News Service (also CNSNews.com) is a conservative news website founded on June 16, 1998 by the Media Research Center, a media watchdog group. Originally calling itself the "Conservative News Service," CNS changed its name to Cybercast in 2000. CNS sees its role as serving an audience which puts a "higher premium on balance than spin" by covering stories that mainstream news organizations ignore.
...Unsurprisingly, CNS itself has been accused of having its own bias. ConWebWatch, a website set up to challenge possible biases in politically conservative news sources, accuses CNS, among others, of engaging in the same tactics as the "liberal media" they criticize:
In reality, these sites are no less slanted or arrogant than they accuse the "mainstream" media of being. They demonstrate time and again that, despite promoting themselves with words like "fairness," "responsibility," "accuracy" and "balance," their real goal is to attack and discredit anyone who doesn’t agree with them, as well as to promote their own political views -- the same exact thing they accuse the "liberal" media of doing
from: Wikipedia.org
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ --
"The Junk Science Page is not about junk science so much as it is about anything which does not support a conservative or libertarian political agenda for businesses and industries that do not like regulations that limit their ability to pollute or poison us or our environment. Milloy uses the term 'junk science' mainly as a political and polemical term. What the majority of scientists call sound science, Milloy usually calls junk science. And what he calls 'sound science', the majority of scientists usually call junk science.
...
In short, the Junk Science page has some valid analyses sprinkled amongst its propaganda, but overall the page is deceptive. There's nothing wrong with having a political agenda, and there is certainly nothing wrong with being concerned that the government is spending its resources on the wrong projects, and there is nothing wrong with being critical of the work of scientists, but there is something wrong with pretending to care about science and truth, while labeling scientists who produce work contrary to your agenda as doing junk science. But don't take my word for it. Just look at the list of scientists that Mr. Milloy considers to be junk scientists: nearly every person on his hit list has done a study with potential political implications that offend his political agenda."
from: http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Hired Hack 'Scientists' and Global Warming
Many partisan organizations have been created over the past (at least) 25 years as disinformation specialists, whose job it is to obfuscate the facts, and create a perception that the facts are in doubt. A lot of moneyed interests want to prevent any policies that would keep them from dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Facts are not fair; they just are. In the interest of fairness, is it fair that paid hack 'scientists' promote ideas meant to confound the public into doing things against their best interest or not doing things for their best interest, all to benefit corporate interests? How many times has this happened in the past? Remember when the big tobacco companies perjured themselves about the addictive & harmful effects of cigarettes, and were deliberately working on increasing that addictiveness? Remember Love Canal? The list of corporate crimes is seemingly endless, but of the top 100 corporate crimes of the 1990's, 38 were environmental crimes.
Here's a fact: an environmental group recently estimated that ExxonMobil Corp. and the products it makes have been responsible for roughly five percent of the world's manmade carbon dioxide emissions since 1882.
Here's another fact: Exxon-Mobil has spent over $12 million dollars funding think tanks to obfuscate the idea of global warming in the minds of the average American.
"ExxonMobil has funded dozens of front groups, think tanks, industry associations, corporate-friendly research centers, and purportedly independent scientists to spread its denialism. Greenpeace has documented the company’s support for a web of more than 100 organizations - from the American Council on Science and Health to the Washington Legal Foundation - that work to cast doubt on global warming science and likely consequences."
"The company has also collaborated with the administration on the basic denialism project. A former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute and chief of staff of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, Philip Cooney, resigned in June 2005 after the New York Times revealed he had edited government reports to challenge the link between carbon emissions and global warming. A week later, Cooney was on ExxonMobil’s payroll."
Buying policy is apparently cheaper than doing the right thing.
For example, Koch Industries, the largest privately-held oil company in the United States, has financed a network of conservative nonprofit organizations designed to influence policy debate in this country."
Many of the same key “skeptics” show up again and again in the echo chamber funded by ExxonMobil:
Here are some other good sources for finding out who's related to whom in the field of global warming (and more) obfuscation:
Media Transparency: Recipients -- tracks the impact of conservative philanthropy on the media - recipients of conservative funding.
Media Transparency: Funders -- tracks the impact of conservative philanthropy on the media - funders.
ExxonSecrets.org -- Documenting Exxon-Mobil's funding of climate change skeptics.
SourceWatch - Documents public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests.
Center for Media and Democracy -- Investigates and exposes public relations spin and propaganda, and promotes media literacy and citizen journalism.
ConWebWatch -- dedicated to analysis and critique of conservative Web-based journalism.
CorporateCrimeReporter -- Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the Decade (1990's)
The Center for Corporate Policy -- a non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization working to curb corporate abuses and make corporations publicly accountable.
from the Center for Public Integrity -- Post-War Contractors Ranked by Total Contract Value in Iraq and Afghanistan
from CommonDreams --The Ten Worst Corporations of 2005
Big Oil Protects its Interests --
Industry spends hundreds of millions on lobbying, elections
Front groups -- List of example front groups from SourceWatch.org
Facts are not fair; they just are. In the interest of fairness, is it fair that paid hack 'scientists' promote ideas meant to confound the public into doing things against their best interest or not doing things for their best interest, all to benefit corporate interests? How many times has this happened in the past? Remember when the big tobacco companies perjured themselves about the addictive & harmful effects of cigarettes, and were deliberately working on increasing that addictiveness? Remember Love Canal? The list of corporate crimes is seemingly endless, but of the top 100 corporate crimes of the 1990's, 38 were environmental crimes.
Here's a fact: an environmental group recently estimated that ExxonMobil Corp. and the products it makes have been responsible for roughly five percent of the world's manmade carbon dioxide emissions since 1882.
Here's another fact: Exxon-Mobil has spent over $12 million dollars funding think tanks to obfuscate the idea of global warming in the minds of the average American.
"ExxonMobil has funded dozens of front groups, think tanks, industry associations, corporate-friendly research centers, and purportedly independent scientists to spread its denialism. Greenpeace has documented the company’s support for a web of more than 100 organizations - from the American Council on Science and Health to the Washington Legal Foundation - that work to cast doubt on global warming science and likely consequences."
"The company has also collaborated with the administration on the basic denialism project. A former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute and chief of staff of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, Philip Cooney, resigned in June 2005 after the New York Times revealed he had edited government reports to challenge the link between carbon emissions and global warming. A week later, Cooney was on ExxonMobil’s payroll."
Buying policy is apparently cheaper than doing the right thing.
For example, Koch Industries, the largest privately-held oil company in the United States, has financed a network of conservative nonprofit organizations designed to influence policy debate in this country."
Many of the same key “skeptics” show up again and again in the echo chamber funded by ExxonMobil:
Here are some other good sources for finding out who's related to whom in the field of global warming (and more) obfuscation:
Media Transparency: Recipients -- tracks the impact of conservative philanthropy on the media - recipients of conservative funding.
Media Transparency: Funders -- tracks the impact of conservative philanthropy on the media - funders.
ExxonSecrets.org -- Documenting Exxon-Mobil's funding of climate change skeptics.
SourceWatch - Documents public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests.
Center for Media and Democracy -- Investigates and exposes public relations spin and propaganda, and promotes media literacy and citizen journalism.
ConWebWatch -- dedicated to analysis and critique of conservative Web-based journalism.
CorporateCrimeReporter -- Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the Decade (1990's)
The Center for Corporate Policy -- a non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization working to curb corporate abuses and make corporations publicly accountable.
from the Center for Public Integrity -- Post-War Contractors Ranked by Total Contract Value in Iraq and Afghanistan
from CommonDreams --The Ten Worst Corporations of 2005
Big Oil Protects its Interests --
Industry spends hundreds of millions on lobbying, elections
Front groups -- List of example front groups from SourceWatch.org
Monday, June 26, 2006
Global warming is a scientific issue that's been politicized
Global warming is a scientific issue that's been politicized, due to social and economic implications. Sadly, currently..."environmental policy is based on what profits there are to be gained or lost today, without attention paid to what the immeasurable long-term costs will be to the shared resource of our environment."
Certain facts about global warming have been established through true scientific methods, published in peer review journals, and are accepted by the vast majority of scientists doing work in the field. "Scientific methods are impersonal. Thus, whatever one scientist is able to do qua scientist, any other scientist should be able to duplicate. ...When scientists cannot duplicate the work of another scientist that is a clear sign that the scientist has erred either in design, methodology, observation, calculation, or calibration."
For example, levels of CO2 poured into the atmosphere each day are measurable. The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere correlate directly with global ambient temperature. As far back as scientists have been able to measure, higher levels of CO2 = higher temperatures. They have measured through ice-cores back as far as 450,000 years. Yes, global warming trends happen in cycles, but the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have risen measurably over the past 100-150 years to be significantly higher than all previous highs over the course of the past 450,000 years. They are the highest they have ever been in recorded time.
"On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is
"clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup of heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil."
Actually, "There have not been any such scientists since 2001 who express the opinion that evidence of global warming is inconclusive or who are skeptical that temperatures have risen the 0.6 ± 0.2 °C as advanced by the IPCC."
The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.
More comprehenisve info regarding scientific opinion on global warming.
Scientists who oppose the idea of human contribution to global warming (note that several of these are among the list of scientists who engage in questionable scientific methods, and are funded by Exxon-Mobil).
"...conclusions that greenhouse gases are causing the planet to heat up are the result of the "most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history.
"The contradictory statements of a tiny handful of discredited scientists, funded by big coal and big oil, represent a deliberate -- and extremely reckless -- campaign of deception and disinformation."
The whole point, as stated by the National Academy of Sciences, is that "greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."
Certain facts about global warming have been established through true scientific methods
For example, levels of CO2 poured into the atmosphere each day are measurable. The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere correlate directly with global ambient temperature. As far back as scientists have been able to measure, higher levels of CO2 = higher temperatures. They have measured through ice-cores back as far as 450,000 years. Yes, global warming trends happen in cycles, but the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have risen measurably over the past 100-150 years to be significantly higher than all previous highs over the course of the past 450,000 years. They are the highest they have ever been in recorded time.
"On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is
"clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup of heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil."
Actually, "There have not been any such scientists since 2001 who express the opinion that evidence of global warming is inconclusive or who are skeptical that temperatures have risen the 0.6 ± 0.2 °C as advanced by the IPCC."
The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.
More comprehenisve info regarding scientific opinion on global warming.
Scientists who oppose the idea of human contribution to global warming (note that several of these are among the list of scientists who engage in questionable scientific methods, and are funded by Exxon-Mobil).
"...conclusions that greenhouse gases are causing the planet to heat up are the result of the "most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history.
"The contradictory statements of a tiny handful of discredited scientists, funded by big coal and big oil, represent a deliberate -- and extremely reckless -- campaign of deception and disinformation."
The whole point, as stated by the National Academy of Sciences, is that "greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."
More on "An Inconvenient Truth"
[The following I wrote in response to an email I received telling me about a scientist (an astronomer) who doesn't believe human activity has anything to do with global warming].
There is a very small minority of actual scientists who believe human activity has had no effect on global warming, though of course there are some, and they are often pimping for corporations, or ideologues who have not done true empirical research in the field of climatology and atmosphereic science (in fact, here's a link to a chart that shows many of the 'think tanks' that dispute global warming, and their connections to the energy corporations: http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html ). There's a lot of intentional disinformation out there, so you have to decide for yourself who's telling the truth, if their truth is based on facts, and what, if anything, you want to do about it.
Before sending out my encouragement to see the movie, I started checking out whether the 'facts' presented in the movie seemed to be true or false, and I believe my research is pointing to them being true.
But see the movie, look at the charts, start doing your own research. The chart I was most amazed by is a prettier version of the 4th chart on this page (sorry I haven't yet found a better, clearer version of this chart): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html (Graph showing a 450,000 year record of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the earth's atmosphere). I'd love to hear your friend's explanation of that enormous spike at present-time that shows the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to be enormously higher than all previous *highs* over the past 450,000 years.
There was a time when 99% (or more) of people thought the earth was flat. Their being wrong about that didn't have as much of a consequence as those in charge being wrong about this does, if they are in fact wrong.
Wanna take that chance? It's the only planet we've got....
Personally, I have no dog in this hunt, other than my sense of personal responsibility to not leave things worse than they were when I got here. And I apologize to everyone younger than me that I couldn't be more effective in leaving you a better place to live. All I can do is educate myself on the important issues, not let myself be fooled by the emperors with no clothes, take the small environmentally sound actions I'm capable of taking, talk to people, and vote my conscience. I do what I can...and I hope you younger folks can figure out how to make things better for yourselves and your children.
At any rate, I just wanted to encourage people to go see the movie, because I believe it effectively shows a lot of facts, well-presented, for a very tiny investment of your time and money, that will help educate you about what might be the most important trend on our planet today.
There is a very small minority of actual scientists who believe human activity has had no effect on global warming, though of course there are some, and they are often pimping for corporations, or ideologues who have not done true empirical research in the field of climatology and atmosphereic science (in fact, here's a link to a chart that shows many of the 'think tanks' that dispute global warming, and their connections to the energy corporations: http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html ). There's a lot of intentional disinformation out there, so you have to decide for yourself who's telling the truth, if their truth is based on facts, and what, if anything, you want to do about it.
Before sending out my encouragement to see the movie, I started checking out whether the 'facts' presented in the movie seemed to be true or false, and I believe my research is pointing to them being true.
But see the movie, look at the charts, start doing your own research. The chart I was most amazed by is a prettier version of the 4th chart on this page (sorry I haven't yet found a better, clearer version of this chart): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html (Graph showing a 450,000 year record of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the earth's atmosphere). I'd love to hear your friend's explanation of that enormous spike at present-time that shows the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to be enormously higher than all previous *highs* over the past 450,000 years.
There was a time when 99% (or more) of people thought the earth was flat. Their being wrong about that didn't have as much of a consequence as those in charge being wrong about this does, if they are in fact wrong.
Wanna take that chance? It's the only planet we've got....
Personally, I have no dog in this hunt, other than my sense of personal responsibility to not leave things worse than they were when I got here. And I apologize to everyone younger than me that I couldn't be more effective in leaving you a better place to live. All I can do is educate myself on the important issues, not let myself be fooled by the emperors with no clothes, take the small environmentally sound actions I'm capable of taking, talk to people, and vote my conscience. I do what I can...and I hope you younger folks can figure out how to make things better for yourselves and your children.
At any rate, I just wanted to encourage people to go see the movie, because I believe it effectively shows a lot of facts, well-presented, for a very tiny investment of your time and money, that will help educate you about what might be the most important trend on our planet today.
An Inconvenient Truth
Just wanted to say, having just seen this movie, if you live on this planet, you owe it to yourselves, your children and any future generations you may hope for to see this movie. It may be the most important hour and 1/2 worth of information you can watch. It's not political, and shows in a very graphic way both a very disturbing present and more disturbing future if we keep on the path we're on and ways we can avert what may seem to be an inevitable world tragedy. Truly, the graphs and photographic evidence presented so well here with such great explanations are shocking -- and I thought I was fairly well informed. Apparently, not so much...
If you don't live on this planet, continue to listen to the 53% of media who claim global warming isn't happening and not to the nearly 100% of legitimate scientists who say that it is, for what have you got to lose?
If you don't live on this planet, continue to listen to the 53% of media who claim global warming isn't happening and not to the nearly 100% of legitimate scientists who say that it is, for what have you got to lose?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)