Stones Cry Out

Would it affect your opinion to know that the fella cited as an unbiased scientist (Bob Carter) in opposition to Gore's position is, in fact, receiving money from ExxonMobile? Could it be that the "many" (he is only one of two cited, are there others? What about this Ball fella?) scientists this essay cites are likewise compromised?

Sources?

Here's the factsheet on Bob Carter at ExxonSecrets. (Oooh, ominous site name, eh?) All they have are quotes from his Tech Central Station article in 2004. No mention of payoffs or financing, or even of Exxon, interestingly. Exxon is one of the many sponsors of TCS, but we're really getting tenuous here.

Here's a post from Daily Kos about this very article. Their best shot:

Now as for Dr. Carter, it seems he contributes to Tech Central Science Foundation, which has been revealed to have gotten $95,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003 for "Climate Change Support". Well, we all know what that means.

Means nothing other than perhaps they think similar things. And apparently to the Kos crew, thinking the same as Exxon is simply not allowed. Again, no payoffs or financing, unless you think everyone who writes for TCS is thereby in the pocket of Exxon (and AT&T and Coke and GM and McDonalds, et. al).

Source Watch? Nothing about Exxon.

Maybe there is a connection that all these sites are missing, but to sit there and hand-wave away anything Carter says because of what appears to be a real stretch of a connection to an oil company, and then, because they're in the same article, call into question every other source is not really adding anything to the conversation.

Dan, Why is it that "liberals" have this double standard on research? If there is research you don't agree with, "liberals" just use ad-hominem attacks against the researchers, and allege bias based on funding. They never offer any evidence of bias; their mere allegation is enough for them. And there is rarely any attempted refutation of the facts; it's an emotional appeal.

Global-warmingists motives and research is never questioned by the left, since they are considered unbiased. "Researching for the good of the planet". But their funding is dependent upon the belief in apocalyptical global warming scenarios.

Global cooling was the fear-mongering du-jour in the 1940s-1970s. People were worried about "the next ice age". Some of the top proponents of an impending ice age back then are now global warmingists. They changed when funding dried up. Follow the money.

Craig, I will say this about ad hominem attacks; I've seen it happen before with us on the Right as well. Neither side has a lock on that particular debating problem.

Having said that, Dan seems to be in the company of other liberals on this issue (the far-left Kos folks, in my example), pulling out thin strands of a connection and hand-waving away everything else said, and even casting suspicion on everyone else named in the story. And boy I'm glad we didn't overhaul our economy when these scientists thought we were in the next Ice Age.

So I agree with your points, just not that only liberals do the personal slams.

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change.

Bob Carter, according to sourcewatch, is a member of the Institute of Public Affairs, which is a lobby group funded by mining and oil companies including Esso Australia, a subsidiary of Exxon. It appears that either sourcewatch or the source you quote is simply lying. Sourcewatch does give references for its assertions.

Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

A survey sampling almost 1000 peer reviewed papers on climate change written by people working in the field failed to find even one that disagreed with the premise that global warming was occurring and had an anthropogenic source. There is no "double standard on research". If virtually every peer reviewed article by experts in the field disputed that global warming was occurring and had a human cause, peoples' reaction would be much different.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball

Note that this criticism can be applied to Bob Carter as much as anyone. You can see a summary of some of the type of argument he uses here

He appears to be, quite simply, an industry shill who routinely makes deceptive arguments.

I didn't dismiss Carter, just pointed out that the sole scientist they offered in this rightwing essay receives grant money from big oil. Which, in my mind, does raise questions. I don't know his research so I don't really have a position on it.

It is compelling to this non-scientist when I see SO MANY knowledgable people with nothing to gain come out with study after study that raises questions about what we're doing to God's creation and our home. And it is a concern to me when so many Right-ish folk "hand-wave away" studies that don't suit them politically.

One of the tenets of classical conservatism is that we have limited genius and it behooves us therefore to be prudent and cautious/conservative in our actions and policies. So I don't really see this as a "liberal" position at all.

Feel free to point out problems with the number of scientists who are somehow making money off reporting studies that suggest global climate change may have human causes. When confronted with two groups, one (vastly larger) that receives money from "do-gooder non-profits" and one that receives money from corporations, I will always be more suspicious of the one receiving corporate money because it is naive to think that corporations are looking at anything much beyond their bottom line.

Wow. Great rebuttal, felix. Do you have a source for the "1000 peer reviewed papers on climate change"?

Here's a link to a summary of the survey, Dan.

And here's a link to an article describing another survey of those same papers that didn't get published.

Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.

However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".

Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.

A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel."

Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted the original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them."

In the article it is noted that scientists that don't spout the global warming orthodoxy don't get their articles published in peer-review journals. First, it wouldn't surprise me, then, that you don't see many peer-reviewed global warming dissent articles. Second, it does surprise me that the scientific community, which supposedly thrives on debate, would eschew it. Scientists can be just as political as the next guy. And it's not a uniquely American thing, either.

Thanks, felix, for the pointer to the IPA link. I noted that Carter is not mentioned in the list of staff, former staff or the board, so while he may be a member, it doesn't appear as if he gets paid for doing so. Still no apparent payoffs or funding from Exxon for Mr. Carter. And the IPA appears that it can be independent from it's funders. From the SourceWatch page for the IPA: "Even Rio Tinto, the conservative mining company, abandoned the IPA because of its strident advocacy against Aboriginal self-determination.". Don't know the specifics of that position, but it at least looks to me like they are willing to take stances that can be against those giving them money. I'd say that speaks well for them. They don't appear to be the industry shills you think them to be.

Do Bob Carter's positions on global warming work to the benefit of oil companies? Yeah, I think they do. Does that mean, therefore, he is an industry shill? Not at all, notwithstanding the Kos guys suggesting that merely writing for a web site that gets some of its money from Exxon is enough to discredit you. And I still haven't seen any backup for the claim that he receives any money at all directly from Exxon.

Dan, I agree about being cautious in our approach to climate issues. For example, I'm extremely happy we didn't cave in to the global cooling scientists in the 70s when they saw a 30-year cooling trend. Similarly, I don't want to create an upheaval in our economy just to find out 10 years from now it was all for naught. I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that CO2 production by man isn't the big mover of global warming Al Gore says it is. The scientific community and liberal groups want to either stifle dissent, cast aspersions, or ignore it out of hand. (And face it, Dan; it is the crowd on the liberal side that is the vast majority of those saying we must do something now, same as the 70s.)

In the article it is noted that scientists that don't spout the global warming orthodoxy don't get their articles published in peer-review journals.

You can take a look at why Benny Peiser's article was rejected here. Or here, or here.



So what we have is someone with a degree in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology submitting a completely flawed study and being rejected from publishment, and then being referenced by the guillible or deceptive as evidence of doubts regarding anthropogenic climate change.



I'm extremely happy we didn't cave in to the global cooling scientists in the 70s when they saw a 30-year cooling trend.



And now you're doing the same thing that Bob Carter does, bring up long debunked myths to support your position.

For those of you who haven't followed the climate change debate, this is standard operating procedure for these people. If you'ld like to learn the difference between science and propaganda, keep watching their tactics. As a reference point, the junkscience.com link is to a site run by a lawyer whose old gig was as a tobacco company lobbyist, and who is an adjunct scholar for the Cato Institute, which receives funding from, among others...wait for it...Exxon.



Nice.

Not convincing. Your 3rd link to anti-Peiser blog posts includes as an example (of something that shouldn't have been included in his results) this line from the abstract:

Abstract: Global climate change does not necessarily imply that temperature or precipitation is increasing at specific locations.

Indeed that does run counter to the orthodoxy. Global warming advocates have been asking for the resignation of the heads of the National Hurricane Center for saying precisely that! I'm sorry, but your sources have set an extremely low bar for them to clear to say that Peiser's discredited.

And I love how you pretty much make my case for the dismissivness of the Left when you call something "propoganda" because the guy who wrote it joined a group of like-minded people, and imply that since that group, in part, gets oil company money that you can claim victory and move on.

I find it entirely possible that the information on Junk Science has its detractors who make contrary claims. That's the kind of debate that should be (but isn't) happening in the media and in the scientific community. Instead you go after the writer (and I'm still trying to figure out the connection you're inferring between tobacco and global warming, unless you just threw that in as a red meat for those that consider that evil enough to ignore anything he writes). Right from the playbook.

Indeed that does run counter to the orthodoxy

This is false. The "orthodoxy" is that at some locations temperature and precipitation will increase, at some locations temperature and precipitation will decrease, and at some locations they will stay the same. A study that claims this does not dispute the consenus opinion on climate change one bit and for Peiser to claim it did was, well, we'll be charitable and ascribe it to ignorance.



I find it entirely possible that the information on Junk Science has its detractors who make contrary claims. That's the kind of debate that should be (but isn't) happening in the media and in the scientific community



If you look at the same survey that found 0 studies that disputed the consensus view on climate change, it found that over half of media reports on climate change disputed that view. So there is a debate happening in the media. The only problem is that the debate is over a question that's been thoroughly investigated by scientists.



Let's turn this around. Suppose that a survey of 1000 peer-reviewed articles in respected scientific journals had found that not a single one of them supported the idea that climate change was occurring and was attributable to human actions.



In addition, the only evidence trotted out to support the idea that climate change was occurring was not peer-reviewed and almost always was done by people associated with corporations that had a vested interest in climate change existing and being attributable to human actions.



Does anyone reading this believe for a second that people such as Doug would, under those circumstances, accept that evidence as proof of anthropogenic climate change? The idea is laughable. Doug would be constantly referring to the 1000 peer-reviewed studies and, if his behavior here is any indicator, personally insulting anyone who disagreed with them.

and I'm still trying to figure out the connection you're inferring between tobacco and global warming



We've got a guy who has argued that the dangers of cigarrete smoke are overstated, that the world needs to use more asbestos, and now that the greenhouse effect can't exist because the earth isn't exactly like an actual greenhouse. So, for the people reading this, it's time to make the choice. Do you trust that guy and the oil companies to come up with a theory of what's going on with the climate, or do you trust thousands of scientists to try to tear down each others' theories and publish the ones that survive?

Indeed that does run counter to the orthodoxy

This is false.

Tell that to the demonstrators. If you want to blame the demonstrators for having bad information, blame those who took them the message. But you'll hear all sorts of folks claiming that the number of hurricanes and other weather changes can be blamed squarely on global warming.

If you look at the same survey that found 0 studies that disputed the consensus view on climate change, it found that over half of media reports on climate change disputed that view. So there is a debate happening in the media.

I'll believe that when I hear more people understanding the huge percentage of greenhouse gases that is water vapor. CO2 and methane everyone knows about, but this huge factor seems to be missed so often. The media may give a slight nod to global warming dissent, but its major points get the shortest of shrift, if they get any at all. That's a poll I'd like to see, about what the public thinks the major greenhouse gas is.

Let's turn this around.

Well put. I'll admit I'd have the tendency to believe science that backs up my current beliefs. To this, I plead guilty to being human. But in reality, the global warming debate isn't about you or me. It's about science that had marched lockstep in the wrong direction in the 60s and 70s, and when the formation does a 180 they expect us to again follow them. It's also about those same people minimizing the opinions of over 17,000 of their colleagues, handwaving away what they say because of who they associate with. They're human too, of course, but at the same time they have ideals they claim to be striving for within their occupation. When you cite a figure of 0% dissention in the ranks when there seems to be plenty of dissent to be found, this doesn't sound very scientific. So much for tearing down each other's theories. Maybe on the details here and there, but not on the big picture. Your own stats put the lie to that.

So since Gore receives money from unions, does that mean that any stance he has on related matters is not only meaningless but simply bought off?