Exxon Offered $10k to Scientists to Debunk U.N. Global Warming Report

This is total BS. If a study isn't submitted for peer review, it's pretty much worthless.

 

I don't get it. Do you have anything at all to back up your accusations of a left-wing conspiracy here? The corporate oil conspiracy is pretty obvious for anyone to see, even you admit there's a motive to create doubt on Exxon's part. Do you understand the scientific process at all? Could you explain the political bent of "those journals" that will prevent scientifically sound research from being published?

Are you saying that all scientific journals lean left, and therefore disallow any research that goes against their political views? This makes no sense. You need to back a statement like this up, especially if you know anything about the scientific process.

There is far more evidence to show how the current administration has manipulated scientific findings to their political views (which are economically expedient) than vice-versa.

Where is the motive for the vast left-wing conspiracy that manipulates every peer-reviewed scientific journal in the world? Is it the greed of the overpowering solar power lobby?

You are a corporate apologist.

 

I never said they weren't SUBMITTED for peer review. I said they weren't published in a journal.

Feel free to call me names. You have as much proof for your claims of a vast corporate conspiracy as I have. I'm not saying this is the absolute truth, just my opinion. Feel free to have a differing opinion from me as it doesn't bother me one bit. I'm sorry if my opinions bother you but I won't be changing them simply because other people don't like them.

I'm not implying that scientific journals lean any political direction. I'm saying that when it comes to global warming, any study refuting any claims of global warming is immediately dismissed as "junk science." It's happened in this forum many times. It doesn't fit in with the preconceived notions of some so it's immediately dismissed.

Even if (and I doubt this is the case) every single study published that casts doubt on global warming is funded by a big oil company, that alone is NOT proof that its findings are wrong. That's a tactic used by many on both sides of the political spectrum today and it's just plain dishonest. Deal with the issues in the report. I have far more respect for someone who attempts to discredit a report funded in part by an oil company by dealing with the methodology or the facts of the study than I do for someone who simply says "Exxon funded it. It's wrong."

 

Interesting post earlier from Dr. Lawrence Solomon of the Energy Probe Research Foundation, halfbreed. I'm not too clear on what the Energy Probe Research Foundation is, or it's history, but I found a column while cruising the net by someone connected with the nuclear industry, where the author describes Solomon as "a professional anti-nuclear activist." I'm not kidding. I would have to search some more to find the link, and it's too late tonight to bother, but I found that intriguing. One can assume that Solomon isn't on the payroll of an energy corporation (via his "foundation" employer, or some other way), I would think, if that's how the nuke people see him. Just found that interesting. The Energy Probe Research Foundation seems to be a Canadian non-profit with a lot of fingers in a lot of pies.

Night, night.

Well, not quite yet... here's a tidbit about Solomon:

Lawrence Solomon, whose column appears every Wednesday in the Financial Post, is one of Canada's leading environmentalists. His book, The Conserver Solution (Doubleday), which popularized the Conserver Society concept in the late 1970s, became the manual for those interested in incorporating environmental factors into economic life. An advisor to President Carter's Task Force on the Global Environment (the Global 2000 Report) in the late 1970's, he has since been at the forefront of movements to reform foreign aid, stop nuclear power expansion and toll roads. Mr. Solomon is a founder and managing director of Energy Probe Research Foundation and the executive director of its Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute divisions. He has been a columnist for the Globe and Mail, a contributor to the Wall Street Journal, the editor and publisher of the award-winning The Next City magazine, and the author or co-author of several books.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/lawrencesolomon.html

I think halfbreed deserves a break here. His source doesn't appear to be a quack. Quite the opposite. I'm not saying at all that I agree with Solomon, but he isn't on an industry payroll. (that I'm aware of!)



D&D. In the Dark of Night!

 

Thanks, Deckard. I appreciate your willingness to at least entertain a differing viewpoint even if you may not agree with it in the end.

Again, I'm not even saying the study is 100% true. I'm merely stating that time and time again, studies such as these are dismissed outright because of their unpopular findings and/or their sources of funding rather than being discussed and analyzed.

 

I think "when followed" is the operative phrase. The scientific process doesn't start with a conclusion. I believe modern Science has so fallen in love with their hypothesis about global warming (on both sides, btw) that the scientific process isn't truly being followed.

Other than statistical analysis, which can be slanted to fit your bias, where is the experimentation section of the scientific method? I wonder if it could ever be done?

 

Wait - are you trying to say that oil/coal companies don't have a conflict of interest here? If what I said was true, that does not make you at all suspicious?

I never claimed to be an expert, but you are proving yourself to be an expert jerk. I have done a lot of global warming "research/review", and was trying to indicate that this was not something I was pulling out of my ass.... irony?

 

I didn't say they don't have a conflict of interest nor did I say I wasn't suspicious. I don't know where you're getting this.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a "jerk" but your assertions are backed up only by your word of previous research. I'm sure plenty of people on here have done school research on various things but that doesn't mean they're more of an expert on anything they've researched.

Your assertion was provided as "proof" that your opinion is more important than mine. I don't think it is just like I don't think my opinion would be more important than yours on areas in which I've done research. I'm sorry if that offends you.

 

Dude. I didn't come down on you that hard. There's a lot worse names being thrown around in here than "corporate apologist."

Sure, people in this forum will dismiss it outright. Most people who follow politics already have an opinion on this. The scientific process, and the community that employs it, however, is founded upon objective observation of empirical data. If someone had well-constructed research and/or evidence to show that global warming is not caused by man, the scientific community would review it and accord. Same goes for evolution, law of gravity, whatever.

Non-scientists with political biases have preconceived notions on climate change. Scientists, despite whatever bias they may have, are inclined by the profession (and their nature) to look at the facts. Certainly more so than, say, an oil exec and their apologists. You say you're not accusing scientists of having a political bias, yet what other reason would they have for refuting research outright without looking at it? You mean they just "like" man-based climate change research so much that they just cling to it and refute anything that disagrees? If so, you don't understand how the scientific community operates.

The Bush administration, the most anti-energy regulating, climate change doubt infusing, reality-denying political body EVER has acknowledged that climate change is probably from man and we should do something about it.

 

I believe it distinct from opinion. The viewpoint from the vast majority of the scientific community is that global warming is happening, and is strongly linked to man-made greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere.

These are not opinions per say, they are theories in the scientific sense, i.e., the available data points to this conclusion, and alternatives are not supported (or not as well supported).

I'm not advocating research to the contrary should be pushed callously aside - but to act like there is a conspiracy is just goofy. The data is not there - and the "conflict of interest" point only further distances said global warming opponents from the realm of science, and towards the realm of corporate manipulation of data for political purposes.

 

Well there it is. You have been coming off as if you see no problem with a company that hires scientists to come to only one conclusion. "i'll give you $10,000 to come up with anything that I can use to fight further environmental regulation against my company".

HUGE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND ANY "FINDINGS" THAT ARE PUT FORTH ARE WORTHLESS.

 

From Dr. Timothy Ball who has a PhD in Climatology from the University of London:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

 

Be honest, halfbreed - do you cite this because you agree with Ball's science (which is not presented here but his academic record seems to be dubious and little known from what I can tell) or his politics? There doesn't seem to be very much science presented in this opinion piece.

It seems to me that his sole contribution is to acccuse others of having an agenda - which is funny because it is the only reason why anybody knows his name.

 

this guy seems more like he has a bone to pick with his colleagues more than tyring to prove that global warming doesn't exist.

edit: sam beat me to it.

 

This is more in response to people who told me to cite to opinions of scientists that certain viewpoints were being shunned or shut out. They seemed to think I was making it up and pulling it out of thin air. This is just one scientist who seems to have the same opinion I do.

Again, it's an opinion.

 

Ah yes. Dr. Ball.

From the presentation I mentioned in post 23:


Dr. Ball is:

• A noted member of EnviroTruth.org, a site maintained by the National Center for Public Policy Research. (sourcewatch.org)

• In 2002 ExxonMobil donated $30,000 to Enviro Truth for "educational activities" and a further $15,000 for general support.

• In 2003 the company boosted its general operating support to $25,000 with another $30,000 for 'global climate change/EnviroTruth website".

• Dr. Ball has not published any research in a peer-reviewed science journal in the last 20 years.

 

Maybe he's being shunned because he's a lousy scientist.

Plus he has taken to suing scientists who criticize him for defamation since he has a problem when people bust him for exaggerating his credentials. This is the poster boy for the free-exchange of ideas?

BTW the "NRSP" which is his primary credential is apparently a Canadian-based anti-environmental group. So again I don't see how this helps your cause.

 

Again, I'm not saying he's the "poster boy." Just an example of someone else who shares my opinion despite the fact that others assumed I was making this all up.

 

Nobody assumed that. We assumed that there was precious litte data backing up you opinion, and that "scientists" who espouse the anti-global-warming party line are mired in controversy as to their funding, and their conclusions.

So far these assumptions have held true.

But feel free to continue chanting said opinion - just expect me to give the data to the contrary each time.