The Exxon “Blame-Game” is a Distracting Side Show
Much media attention has relentlessly focused on the influence of “Big Oil”—but the numbers don’t add up. Exxon Mobil is still vilified1 for giving around 23 million dollars, spread over roughly ten years, to skeptics of the enhanced greenhouse effect. It amounts to about $2 million a year, compared to the US government input of well over $2 billion a year. The entire total funds supplied from Exxon amounts to less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
Apparently Exxon was heavily “distorting the debate” with a mere 0.8% of what the US government spent on the climate industry each year at the time. (If so, it’s just another devastating admission of how effective government funding really is.)
As an example for comparison, nearly three times the amount Exxon has put in was awarded to the Big Sky sequestration project2 to store just 0.1% of the annual carbon-dioxide output3 of the United States of America in a hole in the ground. The Australian government matched five years of Exxon funding with just one feel-good advertising campaign4 , “Think Climate. Think Change.” (but don’t think about the details).
Perhaps if Exxon had balanced up its input both for and against climate change, it would have been spared the merciless attacks? It seems not, since it has donated more than four times as much to the Stanford-based Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP).5, 6 Exxon’s grievous crime is apparently just to help give skeptics a voice of any sort. The censorship must remain complete.
The vitriol against Exxon reached fever pitch in 2005-2008. Environmental groups urged a boycott of Exxon for its views on Global Warming7. It was labeled An Enemy of the Planet. 8 James Hansen called for CEOs of fossil energy companies to be “tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”9 In the next breath he mentioned Exxon.
Even The Royal Society, which ought to stand up for scientists and also for impeccable standards of logic, joined the chorus to implore Exxon to censor its speech10. The unprecedented letter from the 350-year-old institution listed multiple appeals to authority, but no empirical evidence to back its claim that a link with carbon and temperature was beyond doubt and discussion. The Royal Society claims that it supports scientists, but while it relies on the fallacious argument from authority how will it ever support whistle-blowers who by definition question “authority?”
The irony is that taxpayers’ money is forcibly removed at the point of a gun†, but Exxon has to earn its money through thousands of voluntary transactions.
While Exxon has been attacked repeatedly for putting this insignificant amount of money forward, few have added up the vested interests that are pro-AGW. Where are the investigative journalists? Money that comes from tax-payers is somehow devoid of corrupting incentives; while any money from Big Oil in a free market for ideas, is automatically a “crime”. The irony is that taxpayers’ money is forcibly removed at the point of a gun†, but Exxon has to earn its money through thousands of voluntary transactions.
Those who attack Exxon over just $2 million a year are inadvertently drawing attention away from the real power play and acting as unpaid PR agents for giant trading houses and large banks, which could sit a little uncomfortably with greenies and environmentalists. After all, on other days, some of these same groups throw rocks at big bankers.
The side show of blaming Big Oil hides the truth: that the real issue is whether there is any evidence, and that the skeptics are a grassroots movement that consists of well respected scientists and a growing group of unpaid volunteers.
References
1. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets. Wall St Journal “Climate Of Fear”, April 12, 2006. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220.
2. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets.
3. Big Sky Sequestration Project, http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2008/08059-DOE_Makes_Sequestration_Award.html.
4. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#table_1.
5. The Australian: Rudd advertising campaign on climate change cost $13.9 million, 7 Jan 2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24883515-11949,00.html.
6. Exxon = oil, g*dammit!, by Geoff Colvin, Fortune Magazine. April 23 2007. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/30/8405398/index2.htm.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/february25/exxon-022509.html.
7. Environmental Groups Planning to Urge Boycott of Exxon Mobil July 12, 2005. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E4DF133DF931A25754C0A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&scp=5&sq=Exxon%20skeptic%20climate&st=cse.
8. Enemy of The Planet, Paul Krugman, April 17, 2006. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407EEDD173FF934A25757C0A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&&scp=3&sq=Exxon%20skeptic%20climate&st=cse.
9. Are Big Oil and Big Coal Climate Criminals? New York Times, June 23 2008 http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/are-big-oil-and-big-coal-climate-criminals/?scp=10&sq=Exxon%20skeptic%20climate%20royal%20society&st=cse.
10. Letter from Bob Ward of The Royal Society to Exxon, 4 Sept, 2006. http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf.
† This is not an exaggeration. Try “not paying” taxes.
Climate Money: PARTS 1- 4.
1. Climate Money Massive Funding Exposed.
2. How auditing of the Climate Industry is mostly left to volunteers.
3. How the monopolistic funding ratchet slows scientific progress.
4. Why blaming Exxon is a smoke screen to disguise the real vested interests. (You are on this page).
I guess Exxon is to blame for my views, too. After all, I
accepted moneyworked at an Exxon filling station over 40 years ago.30
That letter from Bob Ward of the RS left me furious. How could such a venerable institution have sunk so low? If I were Nick Thomas of Esso I would have told Bob ward of the RS in no uncertain terms where to stick his opinions. But then again, I’m just a humble physicist, not a Director of Corporate Affairs or a Manager of Policy Communication, so what do I know about the science of climate change?
10
Ice may just have, just maybe…. have stopped melting.. (unlikely but possible)
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi_ice_area.png
The agw response to this will be fascinating
10
Good post, Joanne! They pass the blame to anyone except themselves.
VG,post 3, why bring up something that the Alarmist use in there propaganda! The Arctic Ice waxes and wanes every year. Some more than others. It’s been proven since man has been going up there! The Arctic doesn’t have the convenience of land under it so it is affected by a lot of different sources! The only issue is what’s causing temperature to rise slowly over the years. It is not CO2! I’m sure it’s, in my opinion, that it has multiple sources. For this is how Climate Change operates. A multitude of inputs, to which Man has just begun to understand!
10
Meanwhile…
Court documents show that the carbon fuel industry knew that CO2 caused global warming more than a dozen years ago, yet they’ve lied about it.
“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the
potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse
gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and
cannot be denied,” the [industry] experts wrote in an
internal report compiled for the [global climate] coalition in 1995.
The situation closely parallels the history of the tobacco lobby, which for years wrote in internal documents that
smoking caused cancer, yet created advertising claiming that there was no tobacco cancer link.
– – – – – – – – – –
From the New York Times:
In 1995, the Global Climate Coalition, an industry-financed group
challenging efforts to negotiate a new climate treaty or legislation,
sought advice on the latest climate science from its committee of
advisers on science and technology. The resulting internal document,
“Predicting Future Climate Change: A Primer,” challenged recent
research hinting that human-caused global warming was already
measurable. But it rejected a variety of what it called “contrarian”
arguments against the basic concept that accumulating heat-trapping
emissions would substantially warm the planet. The coalition,
according to other documents, later requested that the section of the
primer endorsing the basics of global warming science be cut.
http://documents.nytimes.com/global-climate-coalition-aiam-climate-change-primer#p=1
10
Its curious that a CO2 molecule produced by the purposeful action of man is supposed to have many thousands of times the impact on Global Warming as a naturally produced and totally indistinguishable CO2 molecule.
Its also curious that a dollar spent from a private source who earned that dollar is supposed to have many thousands of times the impact of that self same dollar taken in taxes and spent by a government.
Absurd you say? Determine what the absurdity accomplishes and you will have found its purpose.
10
Man Made Global Warming (AGW) is a position that calls a gas called CO2 a pollutant, but actually it is plant food and is naturally released every second in volcanoes along the edges of tectonic plates of the continents as well as in forest fires started by lightning strike.
It is position that started with “Global Warming” but changed the term to “Climate Change” when the trend is for cooling.
It is a position that states the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere as 380 ppm, never as 0.038%.
It is a position that plots the mean global temperature graph with the integer parts chopped off and called anomalies in order to magnify the temperature variation to give the incorrect perception of larger temperature variation (like looking at a profile of a surface through a magnifying glass).
It is a position that believes in global warming because the global temperature increased by 0.8 deg C in hundred years. However, if you start from 130 years ago, from 1878, the increase is only 0.33 deg C.
AGW is just belief without evidence.
10
Grima – Man Made Global Warming (AGW) is a position that calls a gas called CO2 a pollutant, but actually it is plant food
So is phosphorus and nitrogen, yet phosphates and nitrates are universally recognised as being pollutants when deposited in unnatural concentrations by man. Which is by the was why the EPA has determined that CO2 is a pollutant that manifests immediate danger to the public health and safety.
Grima – and is naturally released every second in volcanoes along the edges of tectonic plates of the continents as well as in forest fires started by lightning strike.
Except In any given year, all of the worlds volcanoes produce less than 1% of the CO2 that man produces. http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
Grima – It is position that started with “Global Warming” but changed the term to “Climate Change” when the trend is for cooling.
Except in the scientific community, it’s always been referred to as “Climate Change”. It’s a term that has greater precision to reflect the fact that some regions will change differently than others. Oh by the way, when in its 20 years history was the IPCC “Intergovernmental panel on climate change” called the IPGW “Intergovernmental panel on Global Warming”? Hmmm?
Grima – It is a position that states the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere as 380 ppm, never as 0.038%.
Oh I see, in your little dream world, even the unit of measure for CO2 concentration was invented in furtherance of a global scoialist conspiracy. Hilarious!
Grima – It is a position that plots the mean global temperature graph with the integer parts chopped off and called anomalies in order to magnify the temperature variation to give the incorrect perception of larger temperature variation (like looking at a profile of a surface through a magnifying glass).
Oh, and the graph plotters are in on it too.
Grima – It is a position that believes in global warming because the global temperature increased by 0.8 deg C in hundred years. However, if you start from 130 years ago, from 1878, the increase is only 0.33 deg C.
0.74`C increase since Industrialisation to be precise, and within the next 20 years, global temperatures will be higher than at any time for the last several hundred thousand years. And we will have made that change in less than 200 years.
Grima – AGW is just belief without evidence.
No evidence other than the observed warming of the earth, the observed increase in Co2 levels, 200 years of science connecting the two, the observed acidification of the worlds oceans, the observed melting of both polar ice caps, the observed melting of the Greenland ice cap, the observed warming of the earth’s oceans, the observed alteration in the onset of the climatological seasons, the observed retreat of virtually all mountain glaciers world wide, etc. etc. etc. But yep, you are absolutely right. AGW is just a belief when you omit all the evidence.
11
How do you know the earth is warmer?
Someone from the government told you so.
What else did they tell you?
What have they ever said to inspire trust, that you have such faith in their word today?
10
Daemon:
CO2 is not in “unnatural concentrations” in the atmosphere; therefore it should not be labelled a pollutant.
“and within the next 20 years, global temperatures will be higher than at any time for the last several hundred thousand years”. So you can predict the future? I suggest you see what Piers Corbyn, who uses physics and science and has a much better grasp of predicting the future, has to say about your nonsense prediction. Presumably your nonsense is based on some computer model, not the laws of physics.
Your last paragraph is just more nonsense, not worth refuting. It’s all natural climate change, not CO2.
10
Daemon…
Plenty of corellation going on there in your last comment. No causation however.
Of the myriad of possibilies responsible for increases in recorded temperatures over the last 200 years, to single out co2 as the culprit even without any evidence of causation is so incomprehensibly ignorant.
The IPCC have been given a mandate to find a link between human produced co2 and dangerous temperature increases.
Is it any wonder that they have come to this conclusion?
It would be far more balanced to start with an open brief and to approach this issue (even though there is no reason to fear global warming) taking every known factor into consideration. The IPCC’s failed predictions are clear evidence that not all factors are known and / or weighted correctly in their computer models.
10
Damien is attempting to use argument from authority once again; except he thinks it has more punch if he quotes industry scientists. Funny, I thought that the standard AGW position was that industry scientists are bought off and aren’t reliable. I guess it just depends on whether he agrees with them or not.
If you really want to do that Damien, you shouldn’t cherry-pick your quotes and use them out of context.
This was in answer to the question:
“1) Can human activities affect climate?”
So, they’re not denying the POTENTIAL impact of human emissions (without quantifying what the amount of the potential impact is).
Some smoking gun.
Some of the parts you DIDN’T quote are at least as interesting:
So, the scientists you approvingly (cherry-pick) quote actually conclude that it is NOT JUSTIFIED to claim that a human effect on climate has been detected.
Since the climate models continue to show zero predictive skill, that situation still remains.
Does this now accurately represent your beliefs? If not, then why are you promoting this document as an authority, and how do you reconcile your disagreement with it?
10
Bob C @ 12,
You are correct noting that Damien continues to use Argument from Authority and Cherry Picking of data. However, by Cherry Picking of the statements by his favored authorities he is also guilty of Dropping of Context.
It is not unusual to observe the concatenation of logical fallacies in almost any argumentation (argument for the sake of argument and not a search for truth) thread. It would be interesting to start a counting of the logical fallacies committed by a given poster in a single post and to keep track of the fallacies used by said poster. My informal estimate is that Damien could win top honors in both categories by just doing what comes naturally to him.
A formal list of logical fallacies can be found at: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
The list is not exhaustive but its a very good start. Most of what is missing are creative concatenations of entries in the list.
I would like to see explicitly added are Cherry Picking, Dropping of Context, and Argument by Intimidation. They are so common, they need to be separately identified even if they are concatenations of the more basic fallacies.
10
Damien, unlike the people before me, I will actually address your argument. I will begin by agreeing with you that Grima’s arguments are tired are annoying. Argument to the Conspiracy, while not a formal falacy, is an annoying yet all-too-common version of ad-hominem that is becoming frustratingly common.
However, you made some questionable assertions of your own. How can you possibly claim that within 20 years that temperature will reach multi-millenial highs? In Greenland, we have recovered Viking graves which have been covered in permafrost for centuries. As you cannot dig a grave through permafrost, the Viking settlement period must have been warmer than today. The dates of the cherry blossom festival in the Imperial Palace of Kyoto also indicate that the medieval warm period was about as warm at today.
The main problem with your argument is, in short, there is no evidence that CO2 is responsible for the global temperature change. The Little Ice Age was called that for a reason. It was cold. A 1F temperature change taking place over a century is hardly unprecedented on a multi-century scale. If the temperature change was mostly natural, then there is no reason to think that temperatures will spiral out of control. However, there was one prediction made by global climate models. The greenhouse gas effect is predicted to cause warming about 10 miles above the surface (this is where the radiation gets absorbed by CO2 and bounced back to Earth) at about 3x the amount that is seen on the surface. This “Hot Spot” is in the middle of the weather balloon range, and should have warmed by 2.5C. It has not. This suggests that the current warming is not caused by greenhouse gases.
With warming out, this leaves ocean acidification as your sole argument. I weep for science. Why? Because anyone with a basic understanding of biological or chemical buffers can understand that this isn’t a valid argument. We are talking about increasing a single variable in a heavily buffered system. The change of pH will be at most a fraction of a point, a change that is dwarfed by the very noticable daily changes in pH. Furthermore, corals and other shellfish evolved on the planet during a period where the CO2 concentration was over 1000 ppm. This indicates that they would not be negatively effected by high CO2 level. Finally, no negative effects have been observed on any sealife in greenhouse testing. Sorry, my friend, but ocean acidification is not a valid argument.
If you are going to start a battle of wits, please be armed next time.
10
Ben:
While I appreciate your attempt to engage Damien in a discussion of relevant facts (good luck with that), I have two (minor) points of disagreement:
1) My post (#12) was a direct response to Damien’s post #5, where he was actually claiming an industry conspiracy to cover up a report that supposedly confirmed AGW, when it did no such thing — about as direct a lie as I have seen him make. (In his defense, however, I doubt he actually read the report himself, but was probably simply repeating a smear from some AGW site.) I was not attempting to answer any of Damien’s comments in post #8.
2) I don’t read Grima’s comments as promoting a conspiracy. He is just listing ways that the supposed dangers of AGW are routinely exaggerated. Joanna Nova’s last few articles on AGW funding make it clear that the vast majority of scientists who make their living studying climate change are funded by agencies which overwhelmingly fund the study of “serious problems”. Simple self-interest and basic marketing are all that is necessary to explain the constant drumbeat of exaggeration — no conspiracy is needed. (For sure, when I write a proposal to a government agency, I don’t try to make it sound like I’m studying an insignificant problem!)
The convergence of interests with politicians is unfortunate, but was perhaps bound to happen sooner or later: The Political Class is practically defined by their lust for power — naturally, they will direct funding and other support towards groups that claim to justify their taking more power.
What we are seeing is a clear case of the scientific – political feedback loop that Dwight Eisenhower warned might happen if government funding became the primary driver of science. (This was in his farewell speech better known for his similar warning about the “Military – Industrial Complex”.) This is probably the most dangerous positive feedback yet identified in AGW research — it definitely shows signs of instability and potential runaway behavior!
10
Ben @ 14,
In the battle of wits, Damien is at best only half armed.
10
Conspiracy is when a group of people cooperate in order to commit a crime. It’s becoming popular to pretend it means a bunch of other things (whatever seems handy). It should be obvious that AGW campaigners work cooperatively (any group of intelligent people with a common goal and the ability to communicate will work cooperatively), but no one is accusing the AGW campaigners of committing a crime. We are pointing out failures in their intellectual rigour and sometimes in their fundamental honesty (but I suspect that they don’t see themselves as dishonest because they have convinced themselves, and each other).
Self promotion and self importance are basic human nature, and standard practice in this world of competitive applications for government grant money.
In the realm of business, this sort of thing works quite well — the end consumer makes the final decision. In the realm of science pretending to run as a business, the grant money allocation scheme injects huge amounts of politics. I don’t have an answer to fix that other than demanding that every publication also disclose where their funding comes from — be it government or the oil industry. Ultimately, public disclosure is the best we can do, then the end consumer of the information gets to think about it and make their decision.
10
I believe that in some cases, the word “inadvertently” may be a bit too generous. Beyond that small quibble, I think you are right on-target. And this old-time arial gunner might comment that your ‘hits on target’ ratio is spectacular!
10
Damien McCormick (Daemon):
You wrote, “Oh, and the graph plotters are in on it too.”
See it for yourself. Do you get the same impression about global warming by looking at the true mean global temperature compared to their anomalies?
True mean global temperature
Mean global temperature anomaly
You also wrote, “0.74`C increase since Industrialisation to be precise, and within the next 20 years, global temperatures will be higher than at any time for the last several hundred thousand years. And we will have made that change in less than 200 years.”
Let us look at the actual anomaly data from the Australian Bureau of Metrology.
Year =>Temperature (deg C)
1878 => -0.01
1908 => -0.55
2008 => 0.34
From this data, the increase in mean global temperature in a century is 0.34 + 0.55 = 0.89 deg C. However, if you consider relative to year 1878, 130 years ago, the increase in mean global temperature is only 0.34 + 0.01 = 0.35 deg C.
As a result, AGW is deception followed by mass delusion.
10
Lionell, Hi, that was a very interesting Web Site you referred to. Thanks! Is there any way I can personnally contact you though email? I’ve got something I want to present to you!
Ben, great response!
Does anyone know where Brian’s been? Haven’t seen Him post lately….Hope He’s alright!
10
Funding non AGW related climate research is almost non existent. It even seems that Exxon is backing off funding this kind of research simply because of the backlash it generates.
Hopefully, I won’t need to find funding to pursue my work. I just found what I think is an extremely rare, 1.3Kg CM1 meteorite that I observed hitting the Earth during the Perseid meteor shower, while deep in the back country of the Sierra Nevada mountains. Since I can connect this to the Swift-Tuttle comet (no meteorite has ever been confirmed to have come from a known comet), it should be worth at least an extra couple of thousand dollars per gram over the $1000/gm it would be worth otherwise. This would certainly be a unique way to finance contrariwise AGW research.
BTW, if life were to evolve from a rock, this would be the one. There are so many organics present that it boggles the mind. This rock is literally the seed of life. Demonstrating that life indeed originated from comets would make this find even more valuable.
Any geologists or meteorite experts out there?
George
10
From the alarmist perspective I guess you need to have companies like Exxon “distorting” the debate. It’s much better than admitting that people are dismissing AGW based on the evidence or should I say the lack thereof. It the last few years the number of skeptics have increased substantially. This has led to alarmists claims become more strident and far fetched. As a result they are increasingly losing credibility and support from the general public.
Unfortunately I don’t think the situation is going to be resolved in the near future. Academic Institutions and individual scientists will fight to keep funding and reputation intact. Governments will not to take on the environmental and financial industry lobbies or give up a revenue source easily.
We had some good news in Australia with the senate rejecting the Emissions Trading bill today. The next few months will be interesting as our prime minister is desperate to go to Copenhagen with an an ETS scheme in place and I think he will pretty much do anything to make it happen.
10
“The ongoing political waffle over setting targets for differing percentages of emission reductions at various points decades in the future is about as useful as debating over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/08/walter-starck
10
Government can fund the clowns, but they can’t affect the sun, and it’s on extended vacation. The USA has seen over 3000 record low temperatures for July.
10
I see that Damien is still providing support for the natural climate change side of the issue. He continues to bring up the obvious errors that the true believers think are correct so we can see and respond.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Damien for his support and input. Without him and people like him we would not have these interesting discussions.
10
Hey, way to go down there Australia! Joanne, your Blog, I feel has definitely had a impact! I was it would here in the U.S.A.! The big issue right now is the Health Care Package Obama is trying to shove down Our throats! A lot of Town Hall meetings are getting vocal over this. Officials are getting an ear full…Again, great job!
10
I wanted to say: I wish it would fail here in the U.S.A.! Sorry about that!
10
George @ 21:
Holy Mackeral, George! You mean you were just camping out and saw it hit the ground? I thought you needed tracking cameras etc to have any chance of finding fresh meteorites. You must have found it before dawn, given when you posted (times on this post are apparently Australian). It must have been quite a sight!
(And I didn’t go out to watch the Perseids because I was tired!)
♫ … don’t know much about geo-logy … ♪ I am only an optical engineer — I should be building those camera arrays!
You probably already know this, but here is a partial list of organizations that buy meteorites:
New England Meteoritical Society (Mendon, MA)
Bethany Sciences (New Haven Connecticut
Smithsonian Institute (Washington, D.C.)
Center for Meteorite Study (Arizona State Univ., Tempe, Arizona
Robert Haag (Tucson, AZ)
Mare Meteorites (Oakland, CA)
MMR Inc. (San Jose, CA)
Walter Zeitschel (Hanau, Germany)
Swiss Meteorite Lab (Glarus, Switzerland).
I read that the Allan Hills meteorite from Antarctica (the one from Mars with possible fossils in it) sold for as much as $5000/gm.
10
BobC,
I saw it fall in the 2007 Perseid shower. I only found it the other day. Normally, these things decompose real fast, but this has been buried in snow for 18 of the last 24 months and in the other 6 months, there’s been nothing more than a few thunderstorms. I have over 8 witnesses to the fireball and 6 to the find, 2 of whom (other than me) saw both. Both concurred that the find was along the path of the fireball. Whether it’s a CM1 or the less valuable CM2, connecting it to a specific comet puts in the same league as the Allan Hills meteorite. It also seems to be harboring life, but at the moment I can’t tell if it’s ET or terrestrial contamination. If it’s ET, you’ll probably see me on the news sometime in the future, but that’s a long shot at the moment.
Here’s a pic.
http://www.palisad.com/pics/meteorite.jpg
George
10
I guess we will see how long it takes for those Viking graves sitting in permafrost to become diggable again with simple hand tools. Just for the record, I’d like to put down my parallel prediction that warming in the next century will be close to warming last century… around 0.8 degrees.
Care to quantify your prediction with actual values or some measurable observation?
10
An interesting article:
has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years. None of the computer models replicate this fact. Anthropogenic (or man caused) global warming is not proved.
The global warming adherents base their argument of proof on more than 20 different computer models called general circulation models (also known as global climate models or GCMs). Each computer model is composed of dozens of mathematical equations representing known scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Each equation has one or more constants. The constants associated with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor of 2 or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong. Then each of these equations has to be weighted against each other for use in the computer models, so that adds an additional variable (basically an educated guess) for each law, theory, and hypothesis. This is where the models are tweaked to mimic past climate measurements.
The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Following years of academic study of the known physical laws and accepted theories, and after reviewing some data, come up with a hypothesis to explain the data. (2) Develop a plan to obtain and analyze new data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and publication.
The output of the computer models run out nearly 90 years forward is considered to be data, but it is not a measurement of a physical phenomenon. Also, there is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the hypotheses in the models are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated and incorporated into the models. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/data-gap-on-atlantic-storms-and-warming/
10
[…] LINK AKPC_IDS += “2866,”;Popularity: unranked [?] (No Ratings Yet) Loading … […]
10
Girma, if it comes from the New York Times, it is a Alarmist haven for articles supporting AGW! Maybe you already know that!
10
[…] JoNova, August 12, […]
10
Denny,
Let’s not confuse issues. I’ve had very good health care here in France recently. Glad I wasn’t in the States, I’d probably be blind by now.
Oh, and by the way, I don’t believe that CO2 is a pollutant nor is it heating up the planet.
10
George @ 29:
I should have guessed it wasn’t just luck!
Let us know how it turns out (if we don’t read about it!)
Bob
10
John from France, glad to hear you got good care there. You must have had some very bad or no insurance here in the States! I didn’t think I was confusing anything. My latest statment was about Girma’s statement! You might want to clairify!
10
Denny,
I’ve never been ill in the States, but have met US citizens who have been ruined by some serious illness in the family. I obviously wasn’t referring to your latest statement, but to one you made a few posts back re Obama and health care. I just don’t see what this has to do with the issue raised in Jo’s article except to bring out the ridiculous polarity of this debate that is doing neither side any good.
10
Respectfully, the following quote appears to be quantifiably incorrect:
“Apparently Exxon was heavily ‘distorting the debate’ with a mere 0.8% of what the US government spent on the climate industry each year at the time.”
I calculate 0.1%.
Click here for some basic science on climate change.
10
Now tell me. If you wish to exclude any support from oil companies on one side of the debate, then you must exclude all the salaries of thousands of Government employees, millions of pounds given to alarmist organisations and millions of pounds used to back advertising against CO2 and the salaries of all the correspondents and Journalsits who earn a living from it. Then you might have some sort of balance. Would that not be fair ?
10
What bugs me is that the AGW lie is so ingrained into the public consciousness that it gets repeated over and over again in irrelevant contexts. For example, I just saw a shredded wheat commercial that used ‘global warming’ as an example of everyday stress that a good breakfast helps you handle.
We also have a lot of idiots out there getting press about insanity like shielding the Earth with mirrors, adding atomized sulfur to the atmosphere and other nonsense to mitigate global warming. Is this the kind of research all of this tax money is buying? The fact that these idiotic concepts even get past the ‘what are you smoking dude?’ stage is insane.
There’s only one way to mitigate global warming … I guarantee with 100% certainty that all you need to do is be patient and wait.
George
10
Sounds reasonable to me. The stress is real even if the problem is not. Indeed, I suggest that the majority of everyday stress is imaginary problems, beat up by media hype, for the very real purpose of keeping populations frightened and compliant.
10
co2isnotevil – You can’t blame the ad-men for latching onto a current topic even if it is wrong. “People will sell their grandmother if the price is right” The sinister thing is the willingness of those in responsible positions to try talk up a position they know is false viz. John Beddington Labour’s scientific officer here in the UK. He was grovelling for excuses in a recent Hardtalk.
10
Jo,
Officially 4% of the world’s oil reserves are owned by private oil companies. The rest are owned by governments. This fact was publicly made at an OPEC meeting in Switzerland a couple of years back – I think it might be linked on http://www.gasresources.net, Jack Kenney’s Abiotic oil web resource.
So Big Oil is the state, not bad, bad, beeg oyl.
Keep the good work up !
10
Friends:
Damien McCormick (Daemon) has been getting some flack here, and I write in his defence.
His postings here provide clear and undiluted AGW-assertions that are commonly shared and accepted by AGW-believers. Hence, his postings provide the focus for debate that otherwise would not happen here.
AGW-supporting web sites are almost entirely composed of AGW-believers congratulating each other on their belief and smearing those who do not share that belief. A few who do not accept their belief do post to those web sites in attempt to cause the AGW-believers to question their assumptions (for example, Girma who posts here does it), but they are very few.
This web site could become a mirror of the AGW-believer web sites in the absence of Daemon. So, we should be grateful to him, and I am.
However, AGW-beliefs are irrational and, therefore, Daemon’s assertions are irrational. This induces ridicule in responses to him here. I regret this because it could drive him away (I often post to AGW-believer web sites then withdraw in disgust at the resulting barrage of lies and insults in response).
So, I argue that responses to Daemon should be in the form of questions that request he justify his assertions: the responses should not be expressions of disbelief, disgust and/or ridicule. Otherwise he could be driven away and his valuable contribution to debate would be lost.
As example, I pose the following question to Daemon.
AGW-proponents say that mean global temperature should not be allowed to rise 2 deg.C because such a rise may induce a runaway global warming. But mean global temperature rises and falls by nearly 4 deg.C each year
(see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php )
and mean global temperature has been much higher than 2 deg.C above its present value for many millennia in the past
(e.g. see http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html ).
So, on what basis is it asserted that a rise of mean global temperature by rise 2 deg.C poses any danger to the stability of the global climate system?
Richard
10
Richard,
Yes, you have identified the only microscopic value the Damien offers to the world: an irrational position to compare and contrast with a rational position. However, that value is truly microscopic and exceedingly transitory. Any value has long since been consumed. It is long past time to “drive him away”.
To say that a continued irrational questioning and pointing out of irrelevant pseudo facts is necessary to stimulate scientists and critical thinkers is an insult to the scientists and critical thinkers. They are their own harshest critics and demand the highest level of coherence with reality of themselves.
I will agree that an irrational position must be addressed. However, it need not be addressed each and every time it is expressed. ONCE is enough. Beyond that, since it is arbitrary (ie not even false), it can properly be treated as noise, identified as such, and dismissed without giving it a further thought. It has no cognitive content for analysis. Continuing the attempt to analyze it is a waste of time that could be put to more valuable uses.
Its even more a waste of time to expect continued analysis to convert the irrational to rational. Knowledge must be acquired as a first person activity with one’s mind fully engaged in the process. The irrational is acquired by accepting the irrational positions of others without further question or mental engagement. The irrational position is held to be “correct” because others say so. Hence the emphases on consensus and the so called peer reviewed papers without reference to the full context of relevant evidence and experience. Combine that with the incessant bleat that one is “better off” (ie safer) trusting those significant others than one’s own mind and you have an intellectual mirror reflecting still other intellectual mirrors in an infinite recursion. A sum of zeros is zero no matter how many zeros are summed.
10
[…] You may also want to check out: How do I get a Small Business Loan or Government Grant if I have a …Big Government » Blog Archive » AMA Endorses Largest Denier of …135+ Awesome Fresh Article Links for Designers and Developers …SelectCDRates.com – The Leading Industry… – http://www.selectcdrates.com/Climate Money – Big Government outspends Big Oil « JoNova […]
10
[…] Climate Money- Big Government Outspends Big Oil By wormthatturned Jo Nova – Climate Money- Big Government Outspends Big Oil […]
10
[…] Climate Money – Big Government outspends Big Oil […]
10
Hello! Just had to chime in. I really loved your post. Keep up the phenomonal work.
10
My new blog entry at
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.com/
> Die Sonne bringt es an den Tag < sums up what I can think of in connection
10
Quesitons.
How old is the Earth?
How was the oil and NG that Exxon makes their money from created?
How did Exxon know where to look for it?
10
[…] As Jo Nova has pointed out, government funding for climate alarmist research is approximately 1000 times oil company and other private funding. On that basis, there should be 1,000 times more questioning about possible alarmist bias for financial gain or job security than for sceptical science. […]
10
Donors Trust has dispersed at least $500 million from un-named donors to help create the climate change science denier machine. Heartland Institute named it’s main funder “Anonymous Donor” = $1.2 million a year. YOU can face that and realize the truth, or you can serve their interests. You have obviously chosen the latter.
Big Tobacco did exactly the same thing, using many of the same players.
Science will remain science, physics is simply physics. Their Findings will run over your propaganda completely at some point.
24
Really? That is not very much. Not when compared to how much money Governments put into promoting the fear of small variations in climate, over long timeframes. Then there is the money, that the “renewables” industry stands to make out of bird choppers, and solar panels that need to be cleaned twice a week, and only have a projected half-life of ten years.
Really? Gosh, 120,000 people, each decided to donate ten dollars to support a point of view that was not mainstream. That is about half of the number of people who spend $10 each, every Saturday, to go to a soccer match in the UK.
“Ooh … There is little you, cowering in the corner, all afraid; and there is the big THEM who are out to get you, so you better watch out”.
I prefer to see that worded as, “Politicians can face (facts) and realize the truth, and serve the interests of the citizens “they serve”, or they can serve their own pecunary interests. They currently choose to do the latter.
And how is that relevant? Didn’t they teach you in Propaganda 101, NOT to draw parallels, especially when your parallel has lost their arguement. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Yes, and computer models will remain neither, especially when all of the physics is, as yet, unidentified, let alone known to the point where it can be definitively expressed as a set of equations.
And you end your rant with a projection of your own fear, expressed as a veiled threat.
You are really not very experienced at this propaganda stuff, are you?
My advice to you, would be to throw whatever corrispondance course you are using, away, and ask for your money back.
51
“small variations in climate, over long timeframes. ”
False: “PwC Low Carbon Economy Index 2012: Too late for two degrees?”
http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/sustainability/publications/low-carbon-economy-index/index.jhtml
“Even doubling our current rate of
decarbonisation, would still lead to
emissions consistent with 6 degrees of
warming by the end of the century. ”
Obviously a business interest, they estimate the chance of stopping sat 2 degrees of warming is nearly zero under current emissions rates.
I find it deleterious to compare the costs of doing science to find out the harm of fossil fuel burning to the cost of presenting non-science to discredit the scientific discipline in order to continue to profit regardless of robust and extensive scientific proof of destructive effects.
Timeframe simply means destruction will take so long, we will be dead by the time the impacts of our profitmaking are felt. Immoral.
“Gosh, 120,000 people, each decided to donate ten dollars to support a point of view that was not mainstream.”
No. It was obviously not plural. THE Anonymous Donor, according to their own tax documents. ONE person. You should look topics up before answering. In this way ONE PERSON can BUY a mass dis-information machine of their own purposes. I think the majority of the America people would find that offensive if they knew it was going on.
““Ooh … There is little you, cowering in the corner, all afraid; and there is the big THEM who are out to get you, so you better watch out”. ”
Agitprop horseshit mockery. So sad.
Science is science. Physics is Physics. You can either face that fact or it will soon run over you. It’s simple logic and reasoning. Science is telling one thing, the oil paid denier machine – including JoAnne who benefits from Heartland – is telling us the opposite. What a puss you must be to find that intimidating verbiage. It’s undeniable fact .. in the real world.
” Big Tobacco did exactly the same thing, using many of the same players.
And how is that relevant? Didn’t they teach you in Propaganda 101, NOT to draw parallels, especially when your parallel has lost their arguement. Dumb, dumb, dumb.”
No need of PARALLELS … you have ZERO degrees of SEPARATION!
The SAME GROUPS that forwarded tobacco lies are now paid to forward OIL lies – HEARTLAND being the main culprit, Fred Sanger started out as a contrarian re: the science of the health risks of tobacco. Same clowns, new circus. The original comment was NOT a parable .. it was a description of reality. You should be familiar with the difference before you attempt to debate the subject.
It’s also relevant because special interests are using their wealth to forward lies that are detrimental to the American public in order to defend their own profits. Extremely Anti-American actions.
I didn;t go to Propaganda 101 class. Never heard of it. Maybe you can share YOUR notes with me?
Sorry – even Linzen admits computer models are valuable and needed. What you may not notice is most of your “authorities” disagree with each other vastly.
” Their Findings will run over your propaganda completely at some point.
And you end your rant with a projection of your own fear, expressed as a veiled threat.”
Not at all.
I have no fear at all that science is lying or has truly screwed up their work after decades at it. I find that position to be silly.
Science is oppositional to the denier position. Science will prevail. That is simple and obvious logic.
Feel free to feel attacked by it … you simply make my point.
25
Well, that flushed you out from cover, right enough. But you still spout propaganda. Lets see just how good you are. And yes, that is a challenge.
Why do you find it harmful to compare scientific hypotheses? And what is this strange thing called “non-science”? Do you believe that science is writ on tablets of stone? No, silly me, that is religion, isn’t it?
As you say, science is science, and it constantly changes as our understanding improves. But the more we search for reproducible empirical evidence of the causative mechanisms whereby CO2 impacts temperature in a free atmosphere, they harder they are to find, and now, looking at the records of the last fifteen years, we find that the apparent correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature is no longer as robust as was previously thought. When I am presented with changed evidence I change my mind, what do you do? You don’t need to answer that. You have already indicated that you believe in a static view of science, that must not be questioned.
As for funding, how does that impact science? Do you believe that you can buy truth? Does truth belong to the highest bidder? Can you pay for truth to be created at will? No you can not. This is what the tobacco industry eventually learnt, and that is what climate science is coming to learn. You should not draw parallels. The anti-smoking lobby just kept on questioning, and won. The sceptics will just keep on questioning, until we win. And money does not have any bearing on that at all. It is a non sequitur.
I did not say that models were not useful. They are useful tools, and I have constructed and used computer models for many years. But they are investigatory tools, they help you to identify what it is that you do not know. But they are never, and can never be, proof of anything, because they are no more than an artifact of the modellers interpretation of a theory.
Are you aware that most Western Police forces use computer models to help them analyse crimes, and identify likely perpetrators? Are you also aware, that no court of law will accept computer model output as valid evidence? Why, then, should the court of public opinion be expected to accept the climate models outputs as being anything other than an investigatory aid?
And so we come back to your religious beliefs.
Science adopts no position, it is just a process of investigation and a search for understanding. Climate scientists use the theories of Physics to construct hypotheses that they presume are robust enough to allow them to accurately predict the future. Sceptical scientists (and engineers) look at the empirical evidence of events, as they occur, and compare that evidence with what the models predicted would occur. Sometimes the models are right. They are based on scientific theory, after all. But other times, the models get it totally wrong, which indicates that there are still a lot of things that we don’t properly understand about the way the climate works.
So it is not a case of Science vs Deniers. It is a case of theoretical science vs empirical science. Science will prevail, it always does. The real question is, “Do you want to place a winner-takes-all bet, with civilisation as the stake, on the programming skills of a bunch of geeks, most of whom are like me?”
61
“I find it deleterious to compare the costs of doing science to find out the harm of fossil fuel burning to the cost of presenting non-science ”
“Why do you find it harmful to compare scientific hypotheses?”
Deleterious: harmful often in a subtle or unexpected way
Yes, I find the denial of science paid for by those who will benefit from that denial deleterious. Their shadow astroturf industry, which Joanna has even benefited from is Big Oil in a guy-next-door suit. There are zero degrees of separation between the paid contrarians like Fred Sanger – who started out as paid contrarian for tobacco corps who pulled this same stunt in order to continue to sell a destructive product and defend their profits – and their funders. Those who regurgitate are not paid, of course. They are a self-organizing system. Linzen claims there is no oil paid denier machine … while he speaks at Heartland conferences.
“Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. ”
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Using propaganda and vitriolic personal attack, these groups have lied to the American people in the name of continuing oil profits at massive costs to humanity. Damage is already high: “http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/warming-and-death/?_r=0” “http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch6s6-5-2.html”
“And what is this strange thing called “non-science”? Do you believe that science is writ on tablets of stone? No, silly me, that is religion, isn’t it?”
Non-science: the climate change denial machine set up and funded by Big Fossil Fuel interests
starting as early as 1995, we see this: http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
picking up steam in 2006 once the nation began to decide to move on the issue: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
The narrative that believing in science is like a religion is one of the most specious of the oil paid propaganda machine.
” But the more we search for reproducible empirical evidence of the causative mechanisms whereby CO2 impacts temperature in a free atmosphere, they harder they are to find”
Why then would hundreds of scientists conclude anthropogenic causation? “Scientists are 95% certain that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming.” IPCC 2013
and yes, the warming is slower … look at the temp chart – has there ever been an epoc or era when a trend maintained it’s trajectory for more than 20 years?
” .. with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7″
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
“You have already indicated that you believe in a static view of science, that must not be questioned.”
Nope. Questioning is the basis for scientific endeavor. We have been questioning these papers and findings for decades now. The 2013 IPCC report is the result thus far. There is a huge difference between honest science and the lie based, deceptive campaign of the oil paid denier machine.
” And money does not have any bearing on that at all. It is a non sequitur.”
That’s ridiculous. The fact that industry is funding specious propagandistic arguments against scientific findings in order to defend their right to profit from destructive practices is empirically proven. But you have possibly ingested so much propaganda, you would be unable to see it, regardless of empirical evidence. Those with financial interest in keeping us on oil have funded a mass of (non) think tanks in order to sway public opinion .. not for any desire for better science. Science told them their industry was on it’s way out. They simply decided – we can buy a different outcome. IF IT WAS NOT the very same (non)think tanks and actors that ran tobacco denial, you might have a point, but Heartland, AFP, AEI prove you wrong.
Here’s the paper trail http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/07/tobaccocontrol-2012-050815.abstract
RE: modeling … Apart from modeling, how would you advise us to address what our future will hold at 400+ ppm carbon?
“Are you aware that most Western Police forces use computer models to help them analyse crimes, and identify likely perpetrators? Are you also aware, that no court of law will accept computer model output as valid evidence? ”
Yes, jurisprudence and science are not the same discipline.
” Science is oppositional to the denier position. Science will prevail. That is simple and obvious logic.
And so we come back to your religious beliefs. ”
Hilarious. No, we come back to regurgitating of oil paid talking points.
Respecting science is NOT religion.
Religion: “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. ”
science: “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”
They are antithetical by definition, although conservative Christians do make denial of climate science a tenet of their religion.
“Science adopts no position, it is just a process of investigation and a search for understanding. ”
Yes. Well said. And those investigations over the past 4 decades have produced a Finding – it is the IPCC report. You can accept that or rail against it, it remains a study of the collected Findings of the peer reviewed science on the subject of climate change.
” there are still a lot of things that we don’t properly understand about the way the climate works.”
Also well said. Yet the hundreds of scientists involved in the IPCC report state there IS enough evidence now to support bold and immediate action.
” The real question is, “Do you want to place a winner-takes-all bet, with civilisation as the stake, on the programming skills of a bunch of geeks, most of whom are like me?””
No. The question is will we pull our head out of our collective ass and decide to invent the next energy system. That is the future Oil fights and the future that will be sustainable and livable for future generations. The oil paid denier machine vilifies clean energy and those who work to push us toward it and encourages “American Energy” – tar sands and fracking as the alternative future. In this way they are a threat to civilization as we know it.
24
OK, lets take this one point at at time.
1. What is it that you claim sceptics deny?
2. I accept that 97% if people who are funded to present arguments in support of the “climate-warming” scare, do so adequately. But what of the other three percent? Will they have their funding withdrawn?
3. What of the thousands of Physicists, who also understand the atmospheric and thermodynamic processes involved, but are not identified specifically as “Climate Scientist”? What is their opinion?
4. What is the empirical evidence that definitively demonstrates that the climate-warming trends are anthropogenic? Correlation, on its own, cannot prove causation. Where is this evidence?
5. So now we move to the nub of your concerns, which is contra-funding. You appear to be concerned that sceptical side of the debate might be funded by a vested interest (but present no evidence, only third party opinion), but you also appear to be totally unconcerned that the non-sceptical side of the debate is entirely funded by grants from Government, which, by the way, stands to gain additional revenue by way of Carbon Taxation, and Environmental NGOs, who stand to gain revenue by way of increased donations, and Government grants. How do you reconcile that that dichotomy?
6. Because it is in their job description. They are funded by grants from various sources, to investigate, or demonstrate, some aspects of anthropogenic causation. If they are inadequate to the task, then they are unlikely to get further funding. But note: Anthropogenic causation is a base assumption in the brief, and is therefore non-negotiable.
7. And I did not say that they were. The use of computer models for Criminological research is a valuable tool, but the findings do not constitute evidence, simply because models are not reality, and are therefore not admissible in Court. How do you justify your obvious belief that climate models, which are also not reality, should be treated any differently?
8. Well, I am glad you mentioned that. So, climate science is based on the output of computer models that attempt (with rather minimal success) to align with historic climatic conditions, and then produce projections based on the assumptions that previous cyclic and linear trends will continue into the future. But these models are based on the human interpretation of historic proxies, that assume simplistic and singular cause and effect relationships, over arbitrary time periods. Nowhere is there any empirical evidence to say that the chosen cause and effect relationship is the only plausible one, nor even the best one if there are options. There is also little or no empirical evidence to support the assumptions made in the process. It is left to the judgement of the researcher, and what they believe to be the historical case. Belief, without empirical evidence, equals religion. And presenting religious belief as science, is not respecting science.
9. Well, of course, we have. In fact we have several options, all of which are either shouted down by those who do not understand the technology, or politically sidelined by those who wish to promote less effective, and more environmentally damaging alternatives, to suit their own agendas. The problems are not scientific or engineering problems, but rather problems with the political will.
10. I left this statement to the end, because I wanted to make my scientific points before moving into the political arena. The quoted sentence, as it stands can apply to both sides of the debate. You assert that some sceptics are sponsored by the oil industry, presumably through the Heartland Institute. I cannot comment on that, because I have seen no evidence. However, I note that you do not present any evidence either. Do you have any?
I can say that Government and NGO funding in support of the supposition for anthropogenic climate change is very apparent, and is in the order of tens of billions of dollars, when you consider all of the Commissions and Government Departments that have been established to significantly reduce a trace gas that underpins all of life on earth. Thankfully, and in true bureaucratic style, they have had little tangible success to date.
51
Did you finally get your Big Oil cheque Jo?? Congratulations!
40
“1. What is it that you claim sceptics deny?”
I bet you are actually familiar with most oil paid narratives … from CO2 increase is good for our species to the entire universe is cooling to global warming is real and caused by humans but poses little or no threat. ECO-Terrorists want to kill us all id=s one of my favs .. along with the religion accusation – oh and Delingpool is stupendous – WATERMELONS????
I can;t think of ONE major subject in the IPPC covered material that the denial machine has NOT tried to debunk. Maybe you can. Joanne’s books are a good example. But, I would guess you know all of that.
“2. I accept that 97% if people who are funded to present arguments in support of the “climate-warming” scare, do so adequately. But what of the other three percent? Will they have their funding withdrawn?
3. What of the thousands of Physicists, who also understand the atmospheric and thermodynamic processes involved, but are not identified specifically as “Climate Scientist”? What is their opinion?
4. What is the empirical evidence that definitively demonstrates that the climate-warming trends are anthropogenic? Correlation, on its own, cannot prove causation. Where is this evidence?”
2. Science is not funded in order to create certain outcomes. Question the climate scientists in the 3% and ask if they have seen difficulties maintaining funding.
3. American Physical Society
“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
http://www.aip.org American Institute of Physics Go there and search “climate change” .. great site, pages of up to date info.
4. a. Empirical evidence finds CO2 PPM up sharply due to burning fossil fuels and rising population of meat eating humans (which are also connected). Satellite/surface measurements show less energy is escaping earth. Ocean/suface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat causing warming. YOu could look up the greenhouse effect for yourself. Much has been published in the last 40 years.
b. I am not a scientist, I’m a journalist. I’m not about to, at this point, think I know more about these subjects than the IPCC. The IPCC report answers your question far better than I obviously could. I see no benefit in non-scientists arguing climate science, do you?
” sceptical side of the debate might be funded by a vested interest (but present no evidence, only third party opinion”
(I presented evidence. obviously – you read the cites, I would guess, as you comment on them)
Are you claiming PBS, The Guardian and PulicIntegrity.org are simply making third party accusations? Did you really believe there was no basis for any of their reporting??/ Hmmmm … why would you think that??
There is no question where the funding for the denial machine has come from. The fact that you use the word “may” belies your either ignorance on the subject or inability to face the truth.
The evidence is massive: I’m not about to do your research for you, but I would suggest you do do some research yourself;
Scientists’ Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
“Climate change-denial
In late February, The Guardian reported that 46 percent of Donors Trust grants in 2010 went to groups opposing climate science. Between 2002 and 2010, the group gave $118 million to about 100 such groups.
A detailed 2012 report published on DeSmog Blog ties Donors Trust to a vast climate science denial machine through its generous support for the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank that mobilized support for the tobacco industry before shifting its focus to climate change.
An October episode of PBS Frontline said Donors Trust has become “the number one supporter” of climate denial groups like Heartland and the Koch brothers-funded Americans for Prosperity after industry giants such as ExxonMobil curtailed funding to Heartland following public protest.”
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/26/12236/news-outlets-unearth-more-donors-trust-recipients
Craig Idso gets $11K a month from Heartland and Fred Sanger gets $5K, as a tip of the iceberg .. Heartland is funded by The Anonymous Donor to the tune of $1.2 Mill according to their own budget.
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/%281-15-2012%29%202012%20Heartland%20Budget.pdf
Koch brothers pour more cash into think tanks, ALEC
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/01/31/12105/koch-brothers-pour-more-cash-think-tanks-alec
Yes, scientists are funded by government. They always have been. That has never impeded them from doing accurate science.
” Why then would hundreds of scientists conclude anthropogenic causation?
6. Because it is in their job description. They are funded by grants from various sources, to investigate, or demonstrate, some aspects of anthropogenic causation. If they are inadequate to the task, then they are unlikely to get further funding. But note: Anthropogenic causation is a base assumption in the brief, and is therefore non-negotiable.”
Scientists have stopped doing accurate science and have sold out the discipline for $? They fudge numbers and outcomes to maintain funding?? That denier narrative is completely preposterous, in my opinion.
1. How do hundreds of climate scientists fudge math based peer reviewed studies over decades and across continents?
2. IF that was the case, would the rest of science not complain loudly that science itself, as a reliable and respectable discipline, is being destroyed?
That the most deleterious pieces of Special Interest Paid horseshit they have written so far. Profoundly intellectually offensive.
“But note: Anthropogenic causation is a base assumption in the brief, and is therefore non-negotiable.”
Please clarify “in the brief”. What brief?
” jurisprudence and science are not the same discipline
7. And I did not say that they were. The use of computer models for Criminological research is a valuable tool, but the findings do not constitute evidence, simply because models are not reality, and are therefore not admissible in Court. How do you justify your obvious belief that climate models, which are also not reality, should be treated any differently?”
I justify it by my belief that science is real, is being done accurately and scientists who know far more about the subject find scientific value in modeling.
Beyond that, let me be more clear. Jurisprudence and science are not the same discipline, thus your parable is useless.
Crime is a not ruled by the laws of thermal dynamics and physics. Different rules = different data sets. Your comparison is a moot point.
” Respecting science is NOT religion
8. Well, I am glad you mentioned that. ”
I didn’t insert it into this conversation. You did.
” So, climate science is based on the output of computer models ”
Reminder: That is not ALL climate science is based on. Our understanding of future effects is not the only aspect of climate science.
” It is left to the judgement of the researcher, and what they believe to be the historical case. Belief, without empirical evidence, equals religion. And presenting religious belief as science, is not respecting science.”
We have plenty of empirical evidence on historical data. You almost seems as if you think historical data is based on modeling. I hope you get how silly that is. I think any argument that scientific endeavor is faith based in not worthy of further wasted characters. I’ve addressed that already.
“The problems are not scientific or engineering problems, but rather problems with the political will.”
Absolutely. The denial machine is program,med to demean renewable energy and PUSH “American energy” – fracking and Tar sands (so they say)
States argue for cutting off solar subsidies | Fox News
Is ‘big solar’ dead? | Fox News Video
Solar subsidies dim, putting future of industry in doubt | Fox News
Solar panel companies subpoenaed in federal probe | Fox News
Firefighters alarmed by latest rescue risk: solar panels | Fox News
Alarming number of eagles killed by wind farms | Fox News
New Research Shows Wind Farms Cause Global Warming | Fox News
” You assert that some sceptics are sponsored by the oil industry, presumably through the Heartland Institute. I cannot comment on that, because I have seen no evidence. ”
Why would you debate a subject which you have not researched? Heartland is one of many special interest funded (non)think tanks churning out misinformation.
” However, I note that you do not present any evidence either. Do you have any? ”
??
Did you Miss the two CITES I provided in that previous comment? I doubt it … very curious …
FROM the reply in which you say I provide no evidence:
“starting as early as 1995, we see this: http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
picking up steam in 2006 once the nation began to decide to move on the issue: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network”
I obviously gave evidence. Are you trying in an off handed way to discredit the evidence … why not review it and answer it’s content …. that is intellectually honest debate. Claiming no evidence is given where you clearly see two cites is strange to me.
I also notice you have provided ZERO citations for your position!
“Thankfully, and in true bureaucratic style, they have had little tangible success to date.”
What do you consider success? I would say the IPCC report itself is a massive success involving hundreds of scientists.
I’m sure you didn’t mean that thankfully they have been unable to convince the globe to get off oil?
The idea that scientists have sold out science and are now nothing more than stooges of the state is grotesque and I think a very telling and common Oil/Special Interest Paid denier talking point (Oil has been the biggest funder and is the easiest to denote – but the funding for these non think tanks that fashion themselves after the propaganda of tobacco, lead, DDT, asbestos science denial is wide and varied.) No strait thinking grown up who has even a basic understanding of peer reviewed science based in the laws of physics buys it.
I’m sorry, I know it’s popular in denier circles – but it’s pure horseshit.
Allow me to demonstrate:
WHAT LEVEL of collusion would be needed to make thousands of peer reviewed, math based studies and reports add up across continents and over many decades?
You believe scientists get together to fudge the math??
Can you explain HOW they pull off such a feat?
11
I now see that a response to my #57.1 has now come through. So once again, let me address it, point by point:
1. You call us “Deniers”, so I asked you to name what it is we deny. In response, we get a diatribe about oil paid narratives, drawn from multiple sources, and possibly quoted out of context. None of which refers to any part of the science that you claim we deny. Would you like to try again?
What is it that we deny, that merits our being put on a par with holocaust deniers, which is the propaganda purpose of that particular slur?
Joanne’s books simply present the basic science, none of which is contested within the scientific community. What is contested is the political and social reactions to that science. The sceptic view is that the science is the science, and has always been thus. The political view, as popularised by Al Gore (who is not a scientist) is that suddenly we need to change society because we are unsure of the outcomes of the science (which has always been there). The term is popularism.
2. “Science is not funded in order to create certain outcomes”. That is a simplistic view of science that depends on whether you are talking about pure science, or applied science. Pure science is pursued simply because there are unanswered questions at the boundaries of science and matematics. The purpose is simply the pursuit of knowledge. Most (but not all) pure science is conducted at universities that receive bulk funding from Government or from philanthropic foundations. Only rarely, does pure research produce something useful in its own right. The benefits of pure research are only realised if and when the knowledge can be used in applied science, or in an engineering context, to affect change in the real world. Applied science, by definition, always has a desired outcome. That may be related to Government policy, or it may be driven by commercial interests, but the outcome is always defined before hand. Applied science is funded specifically by the entity desirous of the outcome. Climate Science is an applied science, and therefore some organisation is paying for a desired outcome.
3. “American Physical Society”. Yes, I am aware if this, and have read a number of articles on the AIP site. I am also been a member of a couple of “learned societies”, at one time or another, for what that is worth. Let me ask you a question. “When the AIP makes a statement, do all of the members agree, quite categorically with the statement made? Do all the members have the same level of knowledge and understanding on every subject? If the AIP is asked a question, can it answer on behalf of all the members, including the specialists in the field, or does it defer to the specialists and ignore the opinions of the other members on that subject. Obviously it is the latter. So when the AIP makes a pronouncement, it is really a pronouncement coming from a group of specialists within the AIP, but using the gravitas of the organisation to add weight to their words. In the case of climate change, and matters relating thereto, these specialists would be the applied scientists that are reliant on funding that is contingent on the desired outcome. If they say the evidence is incontrovertible (as of course they would), then that is what the AIP will publish.
4. “Empirical evidence finds CO2 atmospheric density (measured in PPM) has risen over the last century or so”. I would not use the word “sharply”, but we can all agree that it has increased, and continues to increase. But you then go on to make an assumption, regarding the cause of that increase, when you point the bone at the burning of fossil fuels, and eating meat (a vegitarian for philosophical reasons?). This is the attribution falacy. In the movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, Al Gore presented a chart that showed the cyclic rise and fall of CO2, over time, and also the cyclic rise and fall of temperature over time. He then made the statement that CO2 caused temperature change. But with cyclic events, you cannot say that one leads the other, because I could point at the two curves in the opposite sequence to Al Gore and state that temperature change causes changes in CO2 levels, and do so with the same veracity as Al (actually more so, since I have no interest in Carbon Trading). All you can say, from a scientific perspective is that they are related in some way that we cannot definitively determine. There are theoretical arguments for carbon dioxide to drive temperature, but on the other side, there is some empirical evidence that rising temperatures cause outgassing of CO2 from the oceans. The truth of the matter is that we just don’t know which is the real driver. It could be both, or it could be neither, and both could be reacting to another cause that we have yet to realise. I am not paid to have an opinion on this, but as I noted above, the Climate Scientists are, and you can put whatever weight you like on that fact.
5. I realise that you are not a scientist – it was somewhat obvious. But, I am a scientist, at least by qualification, and I am also a registered engineer. And it is my considered opinion that, as a journalist, you are better qualified than I, to talk about the IPCC, because it is not a scientific organisation, it is a political one. This has been clearly demonstrated by Donna Laframboise, a Canadian journalist, in her book, “The Delinquent Teenager (Who was mistaken for the Worlds Top Climate Expert)”. The title may suggest a novel, but Donna is a fine researcher, and presents some interesting insights into this political organisation.
On the subject of journalism, I have watched PBS, on those occasions when I have been working in the States. It is a fine service. So is PublicIntegrity.org, which we actually use as one of our reference sources. But they have the same problem as all news, and analysis services have. They cannot do all of their own original research and reporting, especially with subjects that are truely intenational, like Climate Change. They end up reliant on Press Releases and the wire services for some of their content. This is especially true for highly technical scientific research subjects, where 97% of all the workers in the field agree on whatever it is that is being said.
6. I am not going to discuss funding, apart from stating the unequivocal fact that I am not paid to comment here. I also know that, in spite of your assertions, Jo is not paid to run this blog. It is totally funded by donations (“buying Jo some chocolate”). We even passed the metaphorical hat around when she had to buy a new computer. The proof of that is right here, on the relevant blog posts. And one last point, on the question of funding, you state that, “46 percent of Donors Trust grants in 2010 went to groups opposing climate science. Between 2002 and 2010, the group (Donors Trust) gave $118m to about 100 such groups”. Are you aware that the primary purpose of Donors Trust is to allow individuals and groups to make anonimous donations. You give them your donation, and tell them who you want to donate to, or what subject you want it spent on, and they make the donation on your behalf. The Tide Foundation does something similar, but it tends to fund alarmist organisations. American Tax law, at its finest.
7. And finally, you pose the following to me, “How do hundreds of climate scientists fudge math based peer reviewed studies over decades and across continents?”, followed by: “I justify it by my belief that science is real, is being done accurately and scientists who know far more about the subject find scientific value in modeling.”
They don’t just find scientific value in modelling, climate science is the modelling. Most of the individual theories have been around for years, and in some cases centuries, and these are not disputed. But some factors, like the process of cloud formation, for example are not so well understood. The complex cyclic and random changes on the sun must have some impact on earth, but are not dealt with at all.
But knowing the theories of how things work, and defining equations to describe the process, is not the same as being able to identify and calculate the complex mathematics involved in the huge number of interactions between all of the individual “bits” acting simultaniously, even for those factors where the maths has been included.
I would not be cynical and skeptical if these problems were spoken of openly. But they are not. The political entity that is the IPCC makes political statements that the science is settled, and the scientists have to live with that. I do not envy them at all.
21
[SNIP. Your comment is too long, and too boring and inaccurate. Take this one point here. If you bothered to research the skeptic position you think is so worthless, you would know that Cooks guide is not worth quoting. He had the help of 4 profs, and took two years to write it. I needed four days, got no help, and took it to pieces so comprehensively that Cook did not reply. He took out the embarrassing graphs that had fooled him, took out my name and reissued it quietly in a different form 6 months later. Too scared to mention me? – Jo]
“Joanne’s books simply present the basic science, none of which is contested within the scientific community”
Yes, so here is where connection to reality is helpful. The opposite of what you claim is true:
Joanne’s books simply debunk basic science; her claims are contested within the scientific community.
And, in reality, conform to Special Interest paid denial machine talking points.
“Not long ago, I read the Skeptics Handbook which displays some fundamental misunderstandings of how our climate works.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-Scientific-Guide-to-the-Skeptics-Handbook.html
“The sceptic view is that the science is the science, and has always been thus.”
If that was the case you would respect the IPCC. You are deceived.
12
“Written by David Weston
July 6, 2009 at 11:17 PM
For starters, Rereke Whakaaro is a pseudonym for a number of strategic intelligence practitioners.
As a group, we are constantly analyzing world events; political and natural, and using the derived intelligence material to inform our individual clients about potential opportunities and risks as they pertain to their individual businesses.
In the course of our work, we see much reporting in the news media that is really retail journalism, that reflects “the next big news story”, or reflects an agenda.”
Huh.
I am Hope Forpeace. I have no need to hide.
You can find me at AKProductions.tv and hopeforpeacenow channel on youtube.
25
Blackbladderthe4th’s brother perhaps? This one can actually use words though.
41
I don’t know where you got that from. But it is irrelevant to our conversation, unless you are seeking a distraction to change the subject.
Would you care to comment on the points I made at #57.1? You accuse me, and other sceptics of “denying science”, which is preposterous, it is like saying we deny literature. You then commit the logical fallacy of an appeal to majority, as if it conveyed some sort of scientific truth. Furthermore, you slander us by implying that we taking bribes from third parties, an so on and so on.
Have you no integrity?
50
If you checked my channel, you would see I am female.
14
Whatever. I wont be increasing your view count regardless.
41
Ohhh .. I SOOOO sad!
25
Huh, I posted a long reply to Rereke .. it fails to appear .. I will wait and try again .. maybe it is in process. Of course I write in Word, so no loss.
I found the post about your name by simply googling it.
Just noting that I have no need to hide as you seem to.
Heywood deserves ignoring.
I’ll check back and see if my post was entered in a few minutes.
10
Oh .. my reply is awaiting moderation … my bad. I didn;t see that.
10
Ohhh .. I SOOOO sad!
21
Well said.
11
[…] Climate money: Big government outspends big oil « JoNova […]
11