Colorado paper disputes global warming

[FourScore]

by citing mostly "experts" who work for the oil industry...Let's take a look...



http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070117/OPINION04/701170315

"Hundreds of the world's foremost scientists and climatologists might strongly disagree ... For example, Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently stated, "At the end of the day, it will all be revealed as a bad joke."

World-renowned scientists who believe the computer models are flawed and the sampling metrics skewed include award-winning Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas; Ph.D., Robert Balling, Ph.D., director of Climatology at Arizona State; Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., past president of the American Association of Climatologists and professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia; Frederick Seitz, Ph.D., past president of the National Academy of Sciences; and Tim Patterson, Ph.D., professor of paleoclimatology at Carleton University, among many others.

Colorado State University's own Dr. William Gray, recognized as the world's leading hurricane experts, said, "Global warming is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people...."



So who are these world-renowned scientists?


Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D.
Past contributing editor to the World Climate Report, a publication of the Western Fuels Association... Fellow(1993-4) at Hoover Institution

A darling of the anti-climate movement, Baliunas has been a central scientist in the fight against action on climate change. She is used by virtually all of the Exxon-funded front groups as their scientific expert.

Baliunas' principal areas of interest include solar influence on climate change, the ozone layer and global warming. Baliunas views sunspots at the cause of climate change rather than carbon dioxide. Her articles are often tagged with the caveat: " remarks represent her own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics..."
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=3


Robert Balling, Ph.D., director of Climatology at Arizona State
In a recent post in The Citizen.com, Dr. Robert C. Balling, director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, launches pseudo-scientific attack on Al Gore's move, An Inconvenient Truth...Balling has been the eager recipient of funding from such philanthropic organizations as ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC...Sourcewatch lists his take from these sources at a little over $400,000 in the last 10 years.
http://www.desmogblog.com/the-inconvenient-truth-about-robert-c-balling



Patrick Michaels, Ph.D.
"Senior Fellow, Cato Institute...Dr. Patrick Michaels is possibly the most prolific and widely-quoted climate change skeptic scientist. He has admitted receiving funding from various fossil fuel industry sources...

Michaels is the Chief Editor for...a newsletter on global warming funded by the Western Fuels Association.... 20% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources: ... Known funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association, $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company... He recieved $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association...Michaels has recieved over $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests...the Intermountain Rural Electric Association "contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels..."
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4



Frederick Seitz, Ph.D.
In 2004,he wrote the following in a letter endorsing the Oregon Petition (a petition opposed to the Kyoto protocol):

"Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

"...Shortly before his retirement from Rockefeller University in 1979, Seitz began working as a paid permanent consultant for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, advising their research program....In a broader discussion of environmental toxins, he concluded "there is no good scientific evidence that passive inhalation is truly dangerous under normal circumstances." <3>...Seitz is also critical of the view that CFCs are damaging to the ozone layer <5>..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Seitz



Tim Patterson, Ph.D.
"A quintessential corporate activist, Patterson has associated himself with influential and notorious public relations firms, such as The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition and APCO Worldwide."
http://gnn.tv/articles/2380/A_Climate_of_Convenient_Truthiness



Dr William Grey:
"Gray made two appearances at this year's hurricane conference at the National Hurricane Conference that were handled, and probably sponsored, by Tech Central Station. This is an important detail because the Web site's funding has been linked to Exxon, among others, in this article and by other sources."
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2006/08/bill_gray_revis.html


It's unbelievable that shit like this in The Coloradoan even gets printed!!!

[FourScore]

1. It's also interesting

that a search on the author ("Louis Phillippe") doesn't really reveal anything. The search either refers to a french king or an ornate style of furniture. I wonder who this person is and who they work for? The Coloradoan has no additional info on the man other than that he lives in Ft. Collins. Oh well.

[laylah]

3. Louis is a reporter

for the Coloradoan, as is my daughter. They (the reporters) just write the stories, nothing more. If you want, I can find out more about this person but I am not sure what the point would be :shrug:

Jenn

[FourScore]

5. Interesting.

At first, I couldn't find any other articles he had written. A closer search turned up 2 articles he wrote in 2002. I was just trying to establish if he also has connections to any of the oil industry. I cannot find any, and his previous articles do not suggest that he would have any connections to them.

At minimum, I think Mr. Phillippe should check out his sources better and at least make note that most of them have received money from the oil industry.

[laylah]

8. You are assuming

the paper would allow that...which is would not because that would be "investigative" reporting, not something the Coloradoan, or other Gannett papers, are in to.

Jenn

[FourScore]

9. "Ever mindful of our journalistic responsibilities."

(Gannetts's mission statement.)

Ft. Collins is a good sized town with almost 120,000 people. I used to live in Erie and would go up Ft. Collins sometimes to go shopping. :hi:

[laylah]

13. That may be their mission statement

but what they promote and what they do, as with most corporations, are, many times, two different things.

I lived in Ft. Collins for 19 years. My oldest is still there (at the paper), as is her dad. The younger is in Denver going to Metro. *sigh* That I would have "lost my mind" almost 5 years ago and moved home to IL is beyond me.

:wave:

Jenn

edited for punctuation

[Cha]

2. They must think everyone

are a bunch of greedy idiots like they are.

[porphyrian]

4. Yeah, if corrupt scientists can be bribed to say global warming isn't real, it must not be.

:eyes:

I don't know why anyone expects any integrity at all from any corporate media anymore.

[Buzz Clik]

6. One's source of funding is not the equivalent of being paid off.

Rattling off funding sources as some sort of disqualification for scientific beliefs is so much bullshit. It ranks right up there with the knuckledraggers who dispute James Hansen and the gang because perpetuating the "myth" of global warming keeps their funding alive.

If you want to challenge their scientific arguments on a scientific basis, have at it. But this is totally ridiculous.

Keep in mind that those who benefit from keeping an air of doubt about global warming will seek scientists who support that notion. It is not necessarily the case that the Exxon's (or whatever) funding turned an enlightened scientist into a whore.

[FourScore]

7. Yeah. Okay. Tell that to the infamous tobacco panel

Just for the sake of agreeing, let's say money doesn't automacally "disqualify" an expert's belief. But it sure does smack of conflict of interest. Not to mention, most of these people are Fellows with the Cato Institue and the Hoover Institue, both very right wing think tanks.

As far as the facts go, their critics say they don't really present any. Unless you want to agree that sunspots are the root cause of climate change and not carbon dioxide.

[Buzz Clik]

11. It's the science that counts, not the source of funding.

The various tobacco experts (i.e., those claiming no health effects) were flat liars.

In this case, we have a mixed bag. Seitz has amazing credentials, but his petition project was a sham. Patrick Michaels holds a reasonably prestigious position, but he is as dishonest as they come.

On the other hand, Balling has been conducting solid research and comes down on the "wrong" side of the issue. Ditto with the Colo. State hurricane predictor guy (whose name escapes me for the moment).

Now consider this: For ten years James Hansen was touting and defending his climate predictions (and those of many, many others) that we would see no real changes in average temperatures over the next two decades. By 2050, he predicted the changes would bed roughly 3 degrees increase. We're seeing average global temperatures that are way over normal and many highly credible scientists are saying that there is simply no other explanation other than anthropogenic causes. And Hansen has jumped on that train despite the fact that it contradicts his models. Does that bother you? It bugs the hell out of me.

Let's keep this discussion focused on the science.

[FourScore]

14. I have to disagree with you.

You find me global warming experts (who say that global warming is real and is caused by carbon dioxide) AND took money from the oil industry, and then I will be more apt to agree with you.

It's impossible to "focus on the science" when conflicts of interest appear to be in play.

[Buzz Clik]

16. That's it? You presume a conflict of interest and dismiss the science?

You've got it backwards. Find questionable science first and then see who's funding it.

Balling is a perfect example. He has been funded to a greater extent by NSF than by energy companies. NSF has a rigorous review process, and if a scientist were publishing crap then he'd never get NSF funding.

[FourScore]

19. Whoa. Let's get something straight.

I do find their science questionable. That's why I wanted to see who was funding it.

ALL of the experts cited in this article claim that global warming is some kind of "hoax" or due to sunspots instead of carbon dioxide...well, I just don't agree with them. I've read enough over the past 20 years about global warming to know where I stand on this issue.

So that brought me to the question, do they have any ties to the oil industry? And, guess what? They do!

Since ALL of the people cited in this article received funding in one form or another from the oil industry, that just plain smacks of conflict of interest IMO.

So I will say again: Find me a scientist who agrees with Al Gore and is getting paychecks like the ones these "experts" are getting from the oil industry. I don't think you'll be able to find them.

[Buzz Clik]

23. Wrong! You only disagree with their conclusions.

People who think that research produces black or white evidence are incorrect. You have demonstrated nothing on this thread that challenges their science. If you have done so elsewhere, I'd love to have the link.

[FourScore]

25. Uh...sorry Dude. The OP is about conflict of interest.

Not a scientific debate. If you want to present all their science in a thread and claim that the funding they get never skews their results...okay...have at it. Mine is about conflict of interest.

BTW, I'm still waitin' on that list of scientists from ya' who agree wholeheartedly with Gore and yet get paychecks like these from Exxon.:evilgrin:

Aside from all that, nothing would please me more than to learn that global warming is a hoax and we have nothing to fear. As it stands right now though, I think we need to make some drastic changes in this world, or mankind may not stand a chance. I'm kinda' sick and tired of "hoax" and "sunspot" theorists who work for the oil industry and think it's fine if we all drive Hummers. We need to change our ways and we need to do it FAST.

[Buzz Clik]

28. My point is conflict of interest, as well.

It has not been demonstrated.

Lists of groups that have paid scientists as consultants proves absolutely nothing, not even conflict of interest.

This is a fool's game that will get you nowhere. You can scream and yell and carry on, but the bottom line is that until someone demonstrates that those scientists who are paid consultants for the energy industry are either doing bad science or spouting proven lies, this is pure inuendo.

As for your list of scientists who agree wholeheartedly with Gore but who've been paid significant sums by industry, let's start with me. I agree that global warming is either upon us or on its way, and I have been paid more than Balling by energy-related industries.

Anything else?

[FourScore]

36. Do tell more...

what have you published re global warming and under what scenario have you recieved maoney from them?

[Buzz Clik]

37. To what end?

It's clear your mind is set that all those who receive funding from energy corporations have become their whores. I have no desire to allow you to turn this personal.

In the final analysis, you are trying to establish a perfect correlation between money received from energy companies and poor scientific judgment with regard to global warming. You are not willing to prove it, just imply it. The only way you could demonstrate your point is to illustrate that these scientists have either lied or published compromised scientific conclusions, but you refuse to do this. Until you do so, you will have presented nothing but wild conjecture.

(As an aside, I can name at least one prominent global warming scientist who received a huge sum of money from a foundation that is very sympathetic with environmental causes. Are you willing to dismiss all of his findings and opinions because of this? Or, does you condemnation go one way?)

[FourScore]

38. I didn't try to make it personal.

You brought yourself into it by using yourself as the example you chose. I was genuinely interested. In any case, I think your posts sound rather hostile at this point. Since you accuse me of being unwavering, and I find you to be the same, I think we can conclude this exchange.

[Buzz Clik]

39. works for me

[TheMadMonk]

15. True enough. However, I saw a video clip recently,

in which a GW skeptic freely admitted writing a paper and then "marketing" it to the oil industry. Furthermore he said, something along the lines of: If the conclusions of his research had been otherwise, he would not have been able to do so.

He knew that there was a market for a particular type of paper.
He pandered to that market by writing something acceptable to them.
He deliberately sought out a buyer for research pre-targeted to that buyer.
He freely admitted that if he hadn't pandered to that market, he would not have been able to get cash from them.

He subordinated the scientific method to the "Law of Supply and Demand".

That's ONE.

Multiple studies have shown that scientists working for, or paid by industry are far more likely to produce "results" favourable to that industry, and at odds with the consensus of their academic peers. The above also demonstrated that some will go as far as deliberately prostituting themselves for the money.

[Buzz Clik]

17. You and I are basicly arguing in the same direction.

I agree that some scientists are happy to ditch objectivity for money. But energy producers have interests and spend money on more than just corrupt scientists. The only way to tease this out is to examine the science.

[TheMadMonk]

22. Or you can simply do science that demonstrates that...

industry funded research is far more likely to be suspect than independently funded.

[Buzz Clik]

24. You can try, but it is impossible to prove.

Stick with the science.

[FourScore]

10. Oh! I forgot the best one!

Richard Lindzen from MIT:

"A 1995 article in Harper's Magazine...was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; ... his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC..."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._L...

[salin]

12. thank you for this documentation...

I have a relative who was conservative - but is growing angry and turning against not only bushco but the party. However he stubbornly sticks to the "global warming isn't a real phenom - or if it is real it is overblown..." - in part because FICTION writer Crichton pushes that view and "cited compelling research" that contradits global warming. I have referred to checking the affiliations of those "Scientists" - but the relative doesn't have the time (nor inclination) to do so. This post has info that I will forward on. Thank you.

[FourScore]

18. Thank you so much for your post, salin.

I was so angry after reading this article. So, I asked myself, "Who are these people?' I did searches and found all these connections to big oil. It really began to make more sense to me then. But that just made me more angry because people like your relative (I have a couple of conservative relatives who claims it's all bunk, too) actually believe what these people are saying. So I decided to research every one of these "experts".

I put quite a bit of time into it this evening and it just makes it so worthwhile to know that someone else (like yourself)can use that information.:toast:

[salin]

20. I thank you again for taking the time to doing this,

and I encourage you to keep this work easily accessible - to repost whenever it is appropriate (per global warming threads, in the future). I am so glad that DU has grown to such a robust and large community. However threads can disappear far to quickly because there are so many posters. As a downside result - sometimes really important info disappears before a whole lot of people read it.

This is far to valuable to die with this thread. I encourage you to post this again - whenever it is relevant (either by cut and paste from your computer - or by a link to this specific thread). Why - because the information is valuable - and each time it comes into a discussion, you reach more people like me - who can use the information. Bigger bang for the buck than to let this information (and your work in digging it up) die with this thread.

Once again I say to you :thumbsup: for this thread!

[FourScore]

21. Great idea. I'll do that!

Thanks again, salin. :pals:

[Orsino]

26. It disputes *acknowledging* global warming...

...and thereby actually supports it.

[Uncle Joe]

27. The next to the last paragraph told me all I need to know re: the author's journalistic integrity

"So who should we believe - renowned climatologists and atmospheric scientists who cite hard data in their conclusions, or Al Gore and a fraternity of like-minded respected scientists applying selective sampling data to unproven theoretical models to achieve a desired result? The truth about climatic change likely lies somewhere in-between, but we should remember this is the same Al Gore who falsely claimed to have invented the Internet."

[FourScore]

30. Good point. n/t

[ItNerd4life]

29. Scientists don't dispute global warming, they dispute the cause

It's scientific fact the earth is slowly warming. What's not known is what is causing it. Humans and our carbon emissions, cows and their methane gas, the sun spots which are more frequent, etc.

The 11th through 13th century the earth was in the middle of a global warming. That's how Greenland (the land of ice now) got it's name. It used to be green.

Until scientific fact is presented, it will always be speculation on what is causing the warming.

What I believe we should be focusing on is the possibility that if it is humans, wouldn't it make sense to have a plan to reduce carbon emissions (or numbers of cows and their methane gas)?

[TZ]

31. exactly

The same mindset claims that evolution is controversial and scientists dispute it...NOOO.. they argue about the exact mechanisms of how it happens not that it happens..but I guess thats probably too fine a distinction for most of the fundy ijits that think they know anything about science...
btw- I have heard several astronomers say that they think Venus was very earthlike a long time ago and is now a big example of the "greenhouse" effect..that should be a red flag for sure...

[FourScore]

32. These quotes from this article DO INDEED dispute it

"At the end of the day, it will all be revealed as a bad joke."

"Global warming is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people...."

Granted, there are scientist who dispute the how, when, where...but that doesn't seem to be the case in this article.

[leftchick]

33. Thank you for this thread and the incredible links you provided.

Thank you for this thread and the incredible links you provided. :)


The exxonsecrets interactive is extremely revealing

[FourScore]

34. Thanks!

Many of the links I provided go there.

[leftchick]

35. duh!

I just noticed that and edited my post. Did you happen to notice if Dr. Gray is there? I am looking for him now.

[Imagevision]

40. Even shrub has back-tracked on global warming, in upcoming 23rd. speech!