scienctists bribed to dispute U.N. climate report
pjl2000xl
1,795 Posts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html 
pjl2000xl
1,795 Posts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
Comments
bad link.
Nothing wrong with the link. Just copy/paste instead of clicking.
Or click HERE
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.
The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.
"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."
One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.
The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.
Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."
Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."
On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.
I'm dying to know what these people think their money will do for them. "Oh, it's an iceage? Lucky I've got this new boat."
How could you possibly sleep at night knowing you're trying to bribe people into NOT trying to help the world.
Hell will have a nice spot for them.
truth= c.r.e.a.m.
truth #2= m.i.t.r.o.e.
2. If we are going to speculate on motivation let us as least be consistent. Let's take a look at the IPCC. Here are a coallition of governments forking over considerable sums of money to a group of scientists to produce a report which recommends a raft of increases in governmental powers. Why are you worked up in a lather about a thinktank offering to pay contributors to a report it was devising and yet entirely unsceptical about the IPCC's report? It is because one falls foul of your prejudices whilst the other sits comfortably within your preconceptions
The fact is that even if the projections are accurate(there is little reason to believe they are, the range of the projections are testament to the sketchiness of the science) it doesnt justify the response proposed by enviro-mentalists.
Damn.
But, I don't agree that there shouldn't be debate on the subject.
Here's a piece written by a fellow Canadian I found an interesting read.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until y ou have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at [email]letters@canadafreepress.com[/email]
lol @ conspiracy theory that global warming is a secret plot to reduce individual freedoms. The road to serfdom is paved with melting icecaps and flouridated water supplies
By Timothy Ball"
I work very closely with the EPA and other evironmental agencies and this article represents the consensus of what I hear from the folks I deal with.
For some reason people seem to want to believe that humans are inherently stupid/evil/destructive rather than understand that global warming is a natural phenomenom.
i would tend to agree, but i think the issue really seems to stem from that fact that no one is smart enough to say "both".
it seems like it's alway an 'either/or' argument. why can't we seem to find any consensus that this may be both a natural phenomenon and also one that is being effected by humans dabbling.
in that case, we fix what we can and allow what we can't to take its course.
doesn't seem like rocket science to me.
Do you even have a degree?
A PhD--a Playa Hata Degree
The second half of the post is mainly just a quick environmental reminder, so if that irks you just scroll down.
___________________________________________________________________
www.ipcc.ch
Homepage of the Interngovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if anyone's interested.
Some criticism and random thoughts...
I think the emphasis on man-made effects are way too centered on the fuel-burning aspect of the issue. It only counts for about half of the increase in CO2 levels. The other half, growth destruction/modification (wiping out rain-forests, etc) never really gets talked about, at least not in my country. The lobbyists probably won that one. Plus, I guess people don't make the connection as easily between the the products (f.ex. fancy wood) that they get out of it, if it doesnt have an exhaust pipe (e.g. a visual representation of ecological harm/impact).
It's also important to note that the sun has a massive influence on Earths climate.[/b] For example, the popular statement that 2005 was the hottest year since the 1800s is very misleading. The truth is, when you take all things into account, that 1935 was overall warmer. This is the suns doing. There are also reports that show that compared to 2005, or even the last few centuries, the temperature measured higher than current peaks, f.ex. in the years 800 - 900 A.D.
So take the scare tactics presently spouted with a grain of salt. I personally feel that it's not the proper way to address the issue. The ideal method would be information through learning, not information through scare tactics. Shocking people into preferred behaviour is not a good agenda in my opinion.
Now, as an environmentalist, I do feel that we people as a whole have to start treating the Earth with more respect. The thing is that it doesn't start and end with fuel-burning, as many people ultimately feel is THE issue. It's everything from, indeed, fuel-burning, to which products you consume (as in, was it produced regionally or is it imported?), what is the origin of the products you consume (as in, where did this piece of wood come from?), to how efficient your use of water is, to how our cities are built (as in, are we diverting to much water away from the soil and straight into rivers/oceans/etc.), etc.
I think it's crucial to understand that we will not wipe out the Earth, the Earth will wipe us out. I can see how people sometimes overlook that fact entirely, since one could argue that the current dominant ideology of a lot of cultures/states/countries/etc... is that one is now born into "the human world" vs. into "nature". The emphasis is on the human spirit, forgetting that we are first and foremost an organic life-form, provided by nature, a capsule if you will. That inevitably leads to; no capsule on Earth => no human spirit on Earth.*
We should do our best to treat the Earth with respect as long as we're here. That is if we want to prolong our stay here. I doesn't really take too much effort.
* this is not a discussion on wether the human spirit/soul/etc can exist in some entirely other realm, the argument is based solely on the human spirit as it relates to our environment.
____________________________________________________________________
Now, regarding Mr. Balls (
And he, rightly, points out that although a lot of people collectively believe something to be absolutely true at a given time, doesn't mean that it absolutely is.[/b] Let's not forget that many of the basic facts & theories which we now base our world on, were at one time looked upon as ridiculous, blasphemous, etc...
With that in mind, I'm not entirely sure if the political influence on the debate is the result of some overt political agenda, or simply that the politicians themselves are influenced by the current collective consensus on the matter.
http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-controlled-by-energy-lobbyists
http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-the-first-canadian-phd-in-climatology
come on, the dude is a nut
LOL .. made me laugh for some reason
i will read that article right now.
Sierra club and Greenpeace have one agenda; saving the environment so we and our can live a more healthy life.
Likewise, oil companies have only one agenda; billions in profits at any cost.
Since only good can come from reducing carbon burning, why not do it?
Freedom from foreign oil.
Freedom from air pollution.
Less cancer.
Less lung diseases.
Less oil on our beeches.
We should also remember that while there was lots of proof for continental drift, many established scientist refused to believe it because it upset their world view.
How the fuck did most of the world go bananas over the "millenium bug" yet treat the concept of us hurting the world as laughable?
It's not a conspiracy theory to think that companies earning billions of dollars don't want to change their ways. Once people can figure out a way to make a buck out of sustainable practices there's really no argument. If scientists are wrong about warming, oh well.
But if they're right...
...wouldn't have bothered answering, but if anyone in the chicago area is hiring, i'm looking for a new line of work