- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, December 07, 2009

Scepticism with a capital K – Manufacturing Doubt


Colleague defends 'ClimateGate' professor
A colleague of the UK professor at the centre of the climate e-mails row says "sceptics" have embarked on a "tabloid-style character assassination". Professor Andrew Watson rallied to the defence of climate scientist Phil Jones, whose e-mail exchanges prompted claims that data had been manipulated. There was no evidence of attempting to mislead people, Professor Watson added.

There is a new type of scepticism, it’s sKepticism with a capital K. This is big oil funded sKepticism, and I look at the nonsense being promoted regarding the climategate hacked emails and am amazed at what a brilliant scam job the sKeptics have spun when I see so many confused people believing this lie.

You know why I think this constant attack on the science is a spin job? Because the bloody Republicans told us so. Why don’t more people know about the Frank Luntz Memorandum to the Bush White House, 2002, on how to shut down the global warming debate?

Winning the Global Warming Debate – An Overview

1: The scientific debate remains open: Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.

Right, so in the same way the Tobacco companies attacked consensus of a link between smoking and cancer, big oil and big polluters are using similar smear tactics to question the science behind the evidence that man made pollution is causing the climate to rapidly change.

And let’s not forget who is backing much of this smear campaign…

Climate Change Skeptics
The world’s largest-ever gathering of global warming skeptics will assemble Sunday in New York City to confront the issue, “Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?” About 800 scientists, economists, legislators, policy activists, and media representatives are expected to register at the second International Conference on Climate Change, opening Sunday, March 8 and concluding Tuesday, March 10 at the New York Marriott Marquis Hotel.

Hmmm, and I wonder who is organizing this climate change sKeptics picnic in wunderland? The Heartland Institute? Ummmm, aren’t they the very same Heartland Institute who until 2006 were receiving money from Exxon Mobile and who also is behind the Tobacco Industries ludicrous position that Tobacco isn’t scientifically proven to cause cancer and as such there shouldn’t be taxes on cigarettes?

Shouldn’t we at least be honest that much of the climate sKeptic agenda is actually funded by big oil?

Between 1998 and 2005: ExxonMobil Grants $16 Million to Global Warming Skeptic Organizations
ExxonMobil disperses roughly $16 million to organizations that are challenging the scientific consensus view that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. For many of the organizations, ExxonMobil is their single largest corporate donor, often providing more than 10 percent of their annual budgets. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists will find that “[v]irtually all of them publish and publicize the work of a nearly identical group of spokespeople, including scientists who misrepresent peer-reviewed climate findings and confuse the public’s understanding of global warming. Most of these organizations also include these same individuals as board members or scientific advisers.” After the Bush administration withdraws from the Kyoto Protocol, the oil company steps up its support for these organizations. Some of the ExxonMobil-funded groups tell the New York Times that the increase is a response to the rising level of public interest in the issue. “Firefighters’ budgets go up when fires go up,” explains Fred L. Smith, head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Explaining ExxonMobil’s support for these organizations, company spokesman Tom Cirigliano says: “We want to support organizations that are trying to broaden the debate on an issue that is so important to all of us. There is this whole issue that no one should question the science of global climate change. That is ludicrous. That’s the kind of dark-ages thinking that gets you in a lot of trouble.”

The following is a list of some of the organizations funded by ExxonMobil:
American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
- AEI receives $1,625,000 from ExxonMobil between and 1998 and 2005. During this period, it plays host to a number of climate contrarians.
American Legislative Exchange Council - In 2005, ExxonMobil grants $241,500 to this organization. Its website features a non-peer-reviewed paper by climate contrarian Patrick Michaels.
Center for Science and Public Policy - Started at the beginning of 2003, this one-man operation receives $232,000 from ExxonMobil. The organization helps bring scientists to Capitol Hill to testify on global warming and the health effects of mercury.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow - Between 2004 and 2005, this organization receives $215,000 from ExxonMobil. Its advisory panel includes Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling, Roger Bate, Sherwood Idso, Patrick Michaels, and Frederick Seitz, all of whom are affiliated with other ExxonMobil-funded organizations.
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) - Founded in 1984 to fight government regulation on business, CEI started receiving large grants from ExxonMobil after Myron Ebell moved there from Frontiers of Freedom in 1999. CEI, along with another ExxonMobil-supported enterprise, the Cooler Heads Coalition, runs the website GlobalWarming.Org, which is part of an effort to “dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis.” Between 2000 and 2003, the CEI receives $1,380,000, or 16 percent of the total funds donated by Exxon during that period.
Frontiers of Freedom - The organization receives $230,000 from Exxon in 2002 and $40,000 in 2001. It has an annual budge of about $700,000.
George C. Marshall Institute - The institute is known primarily for its work advocating a “Star Wars” missile defense program. Between 1998 and 2005, Exxon-Mobil grants $630,000 to the Marshall Institute primarily to underwrite the institute’s climate change effort. William O’Keefe, the organization’s CEO, once worked as the executive vice president and chief operating officer of the American Petroleum Institute. He has also served on the board of directors of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, another global warming skeptic organization, and is chairman emeritus of the Global Climate Coalition.
Heartland Institute - In 2005, this organization receives $119,000 from ExxonMobil. Its website offers articles by the same scientists promoted by other ExxonMobil-funded global warming skeptic organizations.
Tech Central Station - TCS is a web-based organization that provides news, commentary, and analysis focusing on the societal tensions and strains that are concomitant with historical change. TCS proclaims itself as a strong believer of the “material power of free markets, open societies, and individual human ingenuity to raise living standards and improve lives.” Until 2006, the website is operated by a public relations firm called the DCI Group, which is a registered ExxonMobil lobbying firm. In 2003 TCS receives $95,000 from ExxonMobil to be used for “climate change support.” TCS contributors on the global warming issue include the same group of people that is promoted by several of the other ExxonMobil-funded global warming skeptic organizations. In 2006, TCS will pay the public relations firm Medialink Worldwide to produce a video news release that challenges the view that global warming has increased the intensity of hurricanes. The piece is later shown on a Mississippi television station and presented as a regular news report.

I personally love the story about the Public Interest Watch from 2002 – this was a front group funded by Exxon-Mobile which attacked Greenpeace by suggesting that Greenpeace were avoiding tax – amazingly Greenpeace was audited because of this one claim by an Exxon-Mobil front group.

Capitalism has a problem, I’m not talking about the inherent injustice of a few having all the money through a slavish ideological worship of the free market or even the IMF and World Bank genocide of poor people they commit every day with policies that promote Western mega corporations and their ability to dump heavily subsidized mass produced food on countries thus destroying the local markets or the corporate greed clusterfuck unregulated weapons of financial mass destruction that bankrupted the global economy thanks to neo-liberal dogma has caused, oh no I’m not talking about those problems, Capitalism has a much bigger fish to fry. I’m talking about it’s impact on the environment.

The reality is that the filth we pump into our planet to capitalize a credit card SUV, flat screen, cosmetic surgery on demand expediential growth and consumption economy, has an impact on our planets health.

Climate sKeptics on the other hand live in a magical world of make believe where no amount of human activity (all 6 billion of us) has ANY impact on the planet whatsoever. It’s a jaw dropping, the planet is held up by 4 elephants standing on a turtle view of science that if it weren’t so dangerous by it’s wider impact on all of us, would be immensely amusing.

And hasn’t this simple trick worked? Our Prime Minister had to be dragged kicking and screaming to Copenhagen to sign an agreement that will not realistically keep temperature change below a 2 degree increase even though a 2 degree increase on it’s own will cause significant and vast environmental damage, the cost of which will be the possible death blow to many third world countries facing the full force of erratic and severe weather patterns.

Attacking the science behind global warming is Manufacturing Doubt for big oil and big polluters. We need to move past the denial and focus on how we are going to as a planet, as a country and as a community deal with this mammoth problem.

10 Comments:

At 7/12/09 9:59 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tell us bomber what investments Al Gore made before he made his 'documentary' so he could manipulate peoples fears into govnt funding his own private interests thus enriching himself?

You post sounds like you're scared of people even debating the issue.

 
At 7/12/09 11:55 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bomber why do you talk up the protest on Saturday, when there were less people there than the March for Democracy?

 
At 7/12/09 12:53 pm, Anonymous JP said...

Hey at least Bomber is making some progress.

A week or so ago he was studiously ignoring the subject. Then he moved on to his "one sentence" bon mot. Now it's all out attack on the motives of those involved. Though I'd be fascinated to learn that George Monbiot was in the pocket of big oil.

Give it another month and perhaps he will have moved to the more reasonable position that while the emails do reveal several serious about individuals and CRU as an institution the science behind AGW is still pretty formidable.

Face it. The UK Met office is not undertaking an expensive three year review of the data because of a spot of "tabloid character assassination". They are doing it because the CRU data is fucked.

 
At 7/12/09 1:15 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Bomber why do you talk up the protest on Saturday, when there were less people there than the March for Democracy?
Because there weren't. I was at both marches, the smackers were lucky if they had 2000 on the march. It's funny how the mainstream media went from a breathless 6000 on radio, then to 5000 on the internet, then to 4000 just before the news at 6pm, then it was "several thousand" by the 6pm news.

As I pointed out in the war on news, The March for Demokracy should've spent their $450 000 more wisely.

 
At 7/12/09 1:31 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Hey at least Bomber is making some progress.
JP if you are so certain of your side of the debate, why do you lie so much in the following posting?

A week or so ago he was studiously ignoring the subject.
This is the first lie, I blogged on the issue and discussed it on 'The War on News'- both these posts are on Tumeke clearly pointing out that JP is lying. Why JP? Why lie?

Then he moved on to his "one sentence" bon mot.
Which is the exact issue, one sentence has been used to pretend that the science isn't reliable, which is the exact attack lines that Frank Luntz memo outlines.

Now it's all out attack on the motives of those involved.
HAHAHAHAHA one sentence to write off all the Frank Luntz issues, the Heartland Institute issues and the fact Exxon have been creating front groups to muddy the waters. All written off by one sentence, please tell me you have something better than this JP?

Though I'd be fascinated to learn that George Monbiot was in the pocket of big oil.
And this is all you have? Pretend that George Monbiot now doesn't believe in climate change or that these haclked emails have changed his mind? Let's look at what he actually says shall we?

But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory?(8,9) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed.

Why lie again JP? Sure he says he's disappointed, we all are, no one wants to see these attack lines attacking the science in the exact same manner the tobacco industry used to raise questions about cancer links to smoking gain any more credibility, but George also clearly points out this doesn't do a thing to take away from the fact that man made pollution is causing climate change.

Why lie JP? Why misrepresent his position? Again, you got more right?

Give it another month and perhaps he will have moved to the more reasonable position that while the emails do reveal several serious about individuals and CRU as an institution the science behind AGW is still pretty formidable.
No the attack on science just like your big buddy tobacco mates pulled won't stop real progress on stopping man made pollution.

Face it. The UK Met office is not undertaking an expensive three year review of the data because of a spot of "tabloid character assassination". They are doing it because the CRU data is fucked.
No they are doing it so people like you an't continue to muddy the issue.

 
At 7/12/09 4:17 pm, Blogger Chris said...

Tell us bomber what investments Al Gore made before he made his 'documentary' so he could manipulate peoples fears into govnt funding his own private interests thus enriching himself?

You post sounds like you're scared of people even debating the issue.


Al Gore made nothing like the $48bn that Exxon Mobil made last year, or the $27bn that Shell made, or anywhere near the profits made by the Fortune 500 companies in industries like oil, mining, electronics, agrobusiness, arms, and you can look the rest up yourself. That's why seven of the top ten richest companies drill oil for a living.

Yes, because green proponents make a fortune off green technologies - that's why the primary sources are venture capitalists and pissy little government grants.

If this wasn't so important, and you weren't so blind and naive that you could think you can reasonably compare Al Gore's book sales to BP's profits, you'd be fucking funny.

As it stands, you're fucking stupid and it's fucking tragic.

 
At 7/12/09 11:30 pm, Anonymous Gerald said...

Bomber, what has been the 'global' temps over the past decade, and the level of CO2 emissions? Is it not true the global climate has cooled by some 0.8 degrees, whilst emissions have gone up exponentially?
You rightly disparage the Tobacco and Oil industries, both part of the corporate oligarchy, along with others, but the IPCC is of equal corrupt lineage. The UN and all it's appendages are totally rotten to the core, they are after all run by politicians for politicians, the most corrupt and corruptible group on the globe. And you wish to give their utterances credibility? WHY ?? Why all the name calling, "deniers, sceptics," etc, and deny open debate on the issue. Pollution is a human factor, but to then spin this into scenarios like islands going under water because of ice cap melt is absolute bogus science. Believe what you like, and accord to others the same right to believe what they do, without the descent into gutter language, which tends to destroy the legitimacy of your arguement. Human caused climate change is a gigantic hoax. Ever heard of the Sun Bomber? Do you think it could play any significance in climate change. Why is Greeenland so called Bomber? Could it be at a much warmer time in our history, it was green, and not ice and snow covered i.e white? We are told by people that they have used certain data to come up with their theory, then we find they actually destroyed the data, so it can't be tested, and manipulated what they did retain to fit their theory. Call that science Bomber? Do a lot more research on both sides of the question, and perhaps you will discover very real cause for lively scepticism. It's scientifically healthy. Gerald

 
At 8/12/09 8:07 am, Anonymous Sam Clemenz said...

Let's take protestors, the media, the lobby groups for Big Oil, Coal, Big Agriculture, and other heavy polluters out of the equation. What's left?

One shit load of pollution, that no matter where it's coming from needs desperately to be cleaned up and balanced off to head off a Global catastrophy and preserve the place we live.
So, what do you knuckleheads propose other than sitting on your toad stools and counting your gold?
I think this is all just a matter of extreme greed and division that maintains the Global NWO / Class System. Have's against the have not's, and the "have's" want it all not just a fair share of the bounty.

Fuck world pollution, just think and act for yourself and she'll be right!

Yeah Right!

 
At 8/12/09 9:27 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

More bullshit from bomber.
The amount of money paid to skeptics is miniscule compared to that squandered on the climate change industry.
When one looks at the amounts of money governments waste it is quite clear who the real climate criminals are. Every wasted dollar took energy to produce and consumed resources and resulted in no tangible product or benefit to anyone. Oil companies, food producers etc. by contrast produce things of real value and benefit.

 
At 8/12/09 9:50 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris in finance circles this type of market manipulation is known as 'pump and dump' and is illegal. How much you make is irrelevent.

 

Post a comment

<< Home