"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort

Other scientists took it seriously as well, as various papers from E&E are widely cited; "Corrections to the Mann et al 1998 Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series" is cited 242 times, "The IPCC emission scenarios: An economic-statistical critique" 119 times and "Reconstructing climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years: a reappraisal" 127 times.

 

Many scientists get government grants, others are funded by universities which in turn are funded by government. If you were an academic teaching today in a university you'd better toe the line on social policies, Keynesian economics and global warming or you'll find yourself out of a job pretty quickly. Just ask John Ridpath what happened to him.

 

Right - so you have ONE (perhaps) documentary and a report from the "daily fail" at that - I could cite far more than that averring that there is no real cause to action anything at all because it was all a "swindle" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle - which had a bloody sight more than 9 errors

But in essence it comes down to "Don't confuse good science with bad journalism". Gore set out to raise awareness - that he did do and yes there was some hyperbole in there but was it truly "alarmism" - well if it was it did not exactly stop civilisation and dismantle the industrial machine that is pumping all the CO2 into the atmosphere.

Is the IPCC "alarmist"? How many scientists (not US politicians) have been "alarmist" and again what constitutes "alarm" because it is a different meaning to nearly everyone. A flat statement saying that sea levels will rise may be viewed by one as "alarmist" and by another as simply a statement of truth.

Once again there seems to be a use of "weasel words" so that real meaning and definition cannot be pinned down

- - - Updated - - -

You mean you haven't put in a claim??? Lols!!

 

Give me some examples (apart from Mcintyre) of how they have been cited. And yes citing articles that are contrary to what you have been saying is standard in academia. Example

"Jones et al has stated that the sky is blue but White and Black have stated that it is purple with polka dots"

Does that make White and Black accurate?

Now here is one of the IPCC reference lists http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/references.pdf

Where is "Energy and Environment" in the 20+ pages of references? Mind you "Nature" is there more than 35 times

- - - Updated - - -

Prove it

Sorry but I have heard this ad nauseum and there is never any proof - just the belief that this is so

 

Wrong.

In the 1970's the fascists were selling "Global Cooling".

The culprit?

CO2, of course. What else could make the planet colder?

Actually, the UN and many of the primitive countries, like China, have been pushing this nonsense Global Warming hoax to get the industrialized world to hogtie themselves in trying to prevent a circumstance they didn't cause and can't control...because it's a natural event.

 

The court case was very real and Gore lost. Here are some more sources,

Al Gore's Convenient Untruths (Fox News, October 11, 2007)
Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths' (The Daily Telegraph, UK, October 11, 2007)
Al Gore told there are nine inconvenient truths in his film (The Times, UK, October 10, 2007)
An Inconvenient Lie (WorldNetDaily, December 8, 2007)
British Judge Bashes Gore Film (NewsMax, October 11, 2007)
Gore Film Is Partisan, Riddled with Errors, U.K. Court Rules (The Heartland Institute, December 1, 2007)
Gore’s Nine Lies (FrontPage Magazine, October 17, 2007)
UK Court finds 9 Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (The New Party, UK)

Is it possible for you to cite a reliable source unlike Wikipedia? No, it was based on science,

The Science in The Great Global Warming Swindle (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences)

The only thing he raised was hysteria. I love all the plant food being pumped into the atmosphere.

Yes, the IPCC can be alarmist. I defined "Alarm" but you never read anything that is posted here,

ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."

You keep misusing this phrase and like everything else have no idea what it really means.

 

Bowerbird, why are you posting here if you are not reading the responses or what you quote?

I have given you enough examples. If you don't take something seriously you don't cite it. Everyone here understands this elementary concept but you.

If you tried READING what other people post you would not ask ridiculous questions. I gave you the link (multiple times already) that includes all 22 citations to E&E by the IPCC. Go look, I not going to keep repeating myself.

Does the IPCC take Energy & Environment seriously?

 

Sounds like the man-made global warming hoax.

Libs have never "proven" it but they still believe it exists.

And until you can prove it beyond any doubt we are not going to let you ruin our economy and take over every aspect of our lives without a fight.

 

And your link does NOT answer my points

- - - Updated - - -

Again is it being used as a reference for data analysis or as a critique? Even with those citations it still has a low "impact factor" which suggests it is not of high standing - and I know you have a problem with impact factor and have some carefully selected comments to try and discredit it but it still remains one of the mainstays for measurement of academic weighting

I love it! Checked your links and the VERY FIRST paper cited for the Mann rebuttal was to a paper written by Mann himself - so is this a reference rebuttal or a critique? All you have really proven is that scientists do not ignore sceptics

 

Been proven - changing IR signature of the Earth

Just that right wingers do not understand what "proven" actually means let alone IR or even signature - some are still even working on the concept of "planet"

 

Ooops! Fred Singer - and in a thread on "Dark Money funding" at that - what a classic

Fred "Tobacco is good for you" Singer http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s3/TI10841120.html readiness to take money from all who are offering dates back to before the climate argument became fashionable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

 

They were not meant to answer a strawman argument.

Does the IPCC take Energy & Environment seriously?

Why not read more than a cherry picked reference to find out? But again this is a strawman, as the argument you made was that scientists do not take E&E seriously. I have shown your claim to be false.

I have already shown that 'Impact factor' is a measure of popularity not scientific validity that is widely abused and manipulated.

Why would you love being proven wrong? That simply supports my argument, as what I have proven is that scientists do not ignore E&E as you falsely implied.

So far you have been completely refuted on each of your baseless claims against my list and E&E.

 

Why are you making a libelous ad hominem about Dr. Singer? He has never said any such thing.

Dr. Singer has impeccable scientific credentials,

S. Fred Singer, BEE, Ohio State University (1943); A.M. Physics, Princeton University (1944); Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1948 ); Research Physicist, Upper Atmosphere Rocket Program, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University (1946-1950); Scientific Liaison Officer, U.S. Office of Naval Research (1950-1953); Director, Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and Professor of Physics, University of Maryland (1953-1962); White House Commendation for Early Design of Space Satellites (1954); Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cal Tech (1961-1962); First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964); First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967); Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970); Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971); Federal Executive Fellow, The Brookings Institution (1971); Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994); U.S. National Academy of Sciences Exchange Scholar, Soviet Academy of Sciences Institute for Physics of the Earth (1972); Member, Governor of Virginia Task Force on Transportation (1975); First Sid Richardson Professor, Lyndon Baines Johnson School for Public Affairs, University of Texas (1978 ); Vice Chairman and Member, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres (1981-1986); Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation (1982-1983); Member, U.S. Department of State Science Advisory Board (Oceans, Environment, Science) (1982-1987); Member, Acid Rain Panel, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (1982-1987); Member, Space Applications Advisory Committee, NASA (1983-1985); Member, U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Panel (1984); Visiting Eminent Scholar, George Mason University (1984-1987); Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987-1989); Member, White House Panel on U.S.-Brazil Science and Technology Exchange (1987); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Space Science and Technology (1989-1994); Guest Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Guest Scholar, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University (1992-1993); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University (1994-2000); Commendation for Research on Particle Clouds, NASA (1997); Research Fellow, Independent Institute (1997); Director and President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project (1989-Present); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001)

 

So who do you "think" funds climate change research? The global warming fairy?

Here's a tip. Climatologists aren't working for free.

 

Wow!

I had been watching this one from the sidelines, seeing as both of you were deep in the weeds of exploring science versus the denial factory, but this one got me.

EVERY single one of your sources in this post is either a political right wing trash blog, and oil industry finance denial shop, a tabloid slanted to right wing audiences in the US or Fred Singer.

S. Fred Signer is a pay to bray "scientist". He used to work for big tobacco, spreading the non existant "controversy" about nicotine. Now, PRESTO!, he's a climatologist.

Not one of your citations was a scientific publication of any kind.

Every one of your citations was either a conservative political blog or an oil industry front group.

 

It's never been proven.

Your gang writes computer programs that tell you what you want to hear and the lib news media accepts it as fact.

But the rest of us are not so easily fooled.

 

Wrong, The Daily Telegraph and The Times are both UK Newspapers and Fox News is a completely legitimate news source. While WorldNetDaily, NewsMax and FrontPage Magazine are all conservative websites. There are many more left wing sites that covered Gore losing in court but I am not interested in their spin and excuses.

Why are you making things up? He never worked for the tobacco industry. Are you incapable of reading his resume I posted? Let me help you, I have highlighted his extensive environmental science credentials.

S. Fred Singer, BEE, Ohio State University (1943); A.M. Physics, Princeton University (1944); Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1948 ); Research Physicist, Upper Atmosphere Rocket Program, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University (1946-1950); Scientific Liaison Officer, U.S. Office of Naval Research (1950-1953); Director, Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and Professor of Physics, University of Maryland (1953-1962); White House Commendation for Early Design of Space Satellites (1954); Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cal Tech (1961-1962); First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964); First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967); Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970); Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971); Federal Executive Fellow, The Brookings Institution (1971); Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994); U.S. National Academy of Sciences Exchange Scholar, Soviet Academy of Sciences Institute for Physics of the Earth (1972); Member, Governor of Virginia Task Force on Transportation (1975); First Sid Richardson Professor, Lyndon Baines Johnson School for Public Affairs, University of Texas (1978 ); Vice Chairman and Member, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres (1981-1986); Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation (1982-1983); Member, U.S. Department of State Science Advisory Board (Oceans, Environment, Science) (1982-1987); Member, Acid Rain Panel, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (1982-1987); Member, Space Applications Advisory Committee, NASA (1983-1985); Member, U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Panel (1984); Visiting Eminent Scholar, George Mason University (1984-1987); Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987-1989); Member, White House Panel on U.S.-Brazil Science and Technology Exchange (1987); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Space Science and Technology (1989-1994); Guest Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Guest Scholar, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University (1992-1993); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University (1994-2000); Commendation for Research on Particle Clouds, NASA (1997); Research Fellow, Independent Institute (1997); Director and President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project (1989-Present); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001)

Secondhand Smoke, Lung Cancer, and the Global Warming Debate

WTF? Why would there be a scientific publication on a court case?

 

the Times is right wing (owned by Murdoch who has an open agenda that is anti science on AGW) as is the Daily Telegraph

But what do I say about confusing poor journalism with good science?

The "American Thinker" - as an Aussie arguing climate science with conservatives do NOT get me started on how vapid and unintelligent that site is.
Let us look at another site - and if you can pick your sites then I can pick mine - This one sounds Australian

http://www.exposethebastards.com/who_is_s_fred_singer

and in case you missed it in my post I gave a link to a photocopy of a memo showing his involvement http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s3/TI10841120.html

Because courts are supposed to weigh EVIDENCE

 

Proof = vidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
IR = Infrared Radiation
Signature = . A distinctive mark, characteristic, or sound indicating identity:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

Honestly the poor sods freezing their bits off in Antarctica counting snowflakes are not being paid so much that they would give up everything for it. Meantime those who HAVE sold out have got far far more money.

But look at the BOM Aust. Most of those blokes have a good government job - here your job does NOT rely on the opinion of the PM. Believe me - most of our research on climate change was done during the Howard years and John Howard was not going to institute any mitigation for anyone - and I am talking about a PM who had already gone back on his word about introducing a new tax

I know that the White House has interfered with science to force results that they wanted (Look up NRA and the CDC for an example - no research for over 20 years because of political pressure)

But simply READ the scientist's viewpoint
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science

You will note the pressure here is actually the other way (Sen Inhofe has been behind a lot of it and the coal industry is behind Sen Inhofe) Show me a government that increased it's popularity with a tax and I will show you a freaking miracle - and yet that is what the conspiracy theorists would have you believe

 

And I love members who claim wins in the face of complete fails

Especially someone who does not understand what a "straw man argument" really is



To have created a straw man what I am averring would have to be false. I am stating that an academic citation may be not a validation of a paper but a rebuttal. But what I really love is that you are using the very same mechanism of "impact factor" that you have derided to "prove" that the journal Energy and Environment is in fact a valid journal

And I keep telling you - it is not me you have to convince but the scientific community and the IPCC quoting it what 22 times out of the bloody MOUNTAIN of references is minuscule. Every paper of theirs has a multitude of references and I note that again there is this attempt to mislead because there is reference to the entire IPCC instead of individual reports

 

I take it that approve of attacking the source?

Of course you do - you do it several times a week. Yet, criticize others for it. Hmmmmm "Now that's weird Maynard".

 

I do review the source to determine validity - just as you would when reading any science paper. There should always be a statement outlining any "conflicts of interest". Politicians should declare "convicts of interest" so if we have someone who is known and shown to have taken money from large corporations then we have to ask if there is in this case a "conflict of interest".

 

You attempted to claim the government doesn't spend millions on research. I presented evidence that the government spends BILLIONS.

Your ridiculous argument is hereby dismissed.

 

No What I am asking for is that individual scientists are influenced by money - different thing

Oh And I can assure you if you got this "information" from SPPI it is massaged - either they are taking a very very broad definition to falsely inflate the figures or they have simply made them up

Look up SPPI and Jo Nova