Climate Skeptic Funded By Oil and Coal Companies 504
Honken writes with a report from The Guardian that "'One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.' This somewhat contradicts that [Harvard researcher Willie] Soon in a 2003 US senate hearing said that he had 'not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received grants from any organisation that had taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.'"
and in other news (Score:2, Insightful)
many climatologist on both sides of the discussion are employed by people who take a particular interest in one outcome or another.
So, you found one you don't like, I am quite sure we can find more, there are probably even websites dedicated to this.
Should result in a prison sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
Lying in these kinds of hearings is utterly amoral and can have drastic negative consequences for society.
Re:and in other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Most climatologists who support global warming are employed by public sector or non-profit universities and rely on research grants from the federal government. How is this in any way equivalent to taking money from Big Oil and Coal?
Re:and in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep.. on one side are the people who want to keep making $$$ profits. And on the other side are people who'd like to avoid massive coastal flooding and ecological destruction in the next several centuries. We all have our biases, I guess.
Re:and in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Lying to Congress (Score:3, Insightful)
sunshine is the best disinfectant (Score:2, Insightful)
many climatologist on both sides of the discussion are employed by people who take a particular interest in one outcome or another
Your attempt to muddy the waters aside, one thing is clear: this guy accepted a million dollars to deny reality.
Re:and in other news (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:and in other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:and in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Money sources [Re:and in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
many climatologist on both sides of the discussion are employed by people who take a particular interest in one outcome or another.
What do you mean by "both sides"? Really? What funding source were you thinking of that has a financial interest comparable to the trillion dollar profits of the fossil-fuel companies?
That's the party line of the climate-change deniers: "Oh, it doesn't matter that the so-called skeptics are all funded by fossil-fuel companies, because both sides are funded by dirty money."
But, oddly, when there is even a rumor that a climate scientist has received as much as a lunch paid for by a source that is not absolutely spotlessly apolitical, isn't it amazing how the blogosphere lights up with accusations of how climate change is "bought and paid for." (Even when the rumor turns out to be unrelated to actual fact.)
Re:and in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and in other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:and in other news (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok. Who are the big bidders for pro-climate change? And by big I mean those that can put down millions.
Clean energy, who spends most of their money on R&D?
Politicos? Who could get leverage a lot cheaper elsewhere with that same money?
Who?
Re:and in other news (Score:2, Insightful)
But it isn't a lie. It's a fact.
Well, no, it just isn't. Perhaps you are wishing really hard for it to be a fact, but that will not make it so. It just plain isn't true.
But it really doesn't need to be my word against yours. There's a rule to these situations. That rule says that you are supposed to provide evidence, since you're the one making the claim.
That should be easy, since it's a "fact", yes?
Re:and in other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Research does not equal support for global warming.
Research finds support but it also finds things such as weather satilites. Climate trends. Water tables. Pollution and air quality surveys. Storm prediction. I could go on.
There are many reasons to pour money into researching the climate and weather other than just to "support" global warming. The research just happens to be supporting it.
Did you really need to ask that question? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a hint: the universities and research agencies that employ most normal scientists get the same amount of money regardless of the findings on anthropogenic climate change. The oil companies who employ all of the prominent ACC skeptics stand to lose billions of dollars if the findings are not a certain way.
Let's put it another way. Acme Pharmaceuticals wants to start selling a new drug. Scientists from universities find that the drug is not safe. Scientists employed by Acme Pharmaceuticals find that the drug is perfectly safe. Given these two pieces of information, would you give this new drug to your children?
This constant "the other side is exactly as bad" argument from conservatives and libertarians is laughable in almost every instance it is used.
Re:and in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't news.
You won't hear about it in the media.
If he was a supporter of Global Warming we'd hear about it for a couple of weeks as one of the top stories.
Re:Climate Catastrophists are funded by everyone e (Score:4, Insightful)
What *is it* with fuckwits like you?
Greenpeace global revenues in 2010: about 56m euros. Exxon just about pipped Greenpeace there, with an income of 311bn dollars in the same year. So clearly it is Greenpeace who is able to throw money around like billy-o and has an enormous financial stake in the outcome of this debate. Yes, that's absolutely clear.
Re:and in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm reminded of when all the government and educational-funded scientists were doing studies that showed smoking tobacco is bad for you and leads to cancer... and the tobacco companies all had their "scientists" [wikipedia.org], many of whom later testified to Congress about the fact that they'd falsified their "studies" to suit those who were paying them.
Eerily familiar isn't it?
Re:Did you really need to ask that question? (Score:2, Insightful)
30 years ago the Republicunts insisting smoking wasn't bad for you (on the pay of Big Tobacco) were playing the same game there. They still are screaming about the "free choice to smoke" in my area as we try to eliminate smoking from public places.
Remember the "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" idea the Republicunts keep screaming about when they want "freedom"? Well, your right to smoke ends when you blow it in my face, asswad.
Not climate 'skeptics' (Score:5, Insightful)
Paid For Any Results v. Paid For Specific Results (Score:4, Insightful)
Researchers who are subsidized by public concerns are paid to provide results that may be useful to the public. The grant process is transparent.
Researchers who are subsidized by private concerns are paid to provide results that are useful to the owners. The grant process is opaque.
The perceived interests of active shareholders and executives often do not coincide with the perceived interests of the public at large, ergo private concerns often attempt to hide their role in certain kinds of "research", because the degree of self interest in controlling the results is all too apparent.
Re:and in other news (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no need to spend a lot on the skeptical viewpoint since there is no research to be done on that front. Billions will buy research, millions will buy people.
As for government interference, it's pretty obvious that conservatives (at least republicans and Canadian conservatives) are trying to push the skeptical point of view. I'm not sure how a government conspiracy to shove climate alarmism down our throats could survive eight years of Bush presidency and the staunch opposition of roughly half of the political spectrum. There has been intimidation, partisan appointments and attempts at censorship from the government *against* the theory of anthropogenic climate change, so at best I would say scientists have been getting a pretty damn mixed signal from big government.
Of course I guess you could just say these valiant heroes are putting their careers on the line saving us from the green apocalypse. But of course, they are nearly powerless in the face of the gargantuan amounts of money Al Gore has been personally channeling into universities with the help of the dark cabal with which he has deeply infiltrated all levels of government and acts in spite of whatever party is supposed to control it.
Double Standard (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it strange that research done by ethical people funded by organizations with one vested interest is deemed suspect while research done by ethical people funded by organizations with other vested interests is not.
The environmental community is not without funding issues. They have to cater to their contributors to continue to receive funding. An organization that gathers funding under the auspices that global warming is caused by human activity that published research contrary to that position will not continue to get funding. It is possible that the research is tainted in the same way and for the same reasons as research funded by oil companies.
Even Government funded research funding is not above suspicion. If the research does not agree with the position of the government will the funding continue?
Anywhere that money changes hand the desires of the one giving the money influences the outcome. The only solution I see is to have an independent body that takes money from all contributors and distributes it to researchers. That way researchers are not funded by one side or the other.
Re:Lets balance this out... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ [factcheck.org]
As for carbon-taxes, you can still believe Anthropogenic Global Warming is happening and disagree with the carbon-tax solution. In fact, I've seen experiment that show that, if you present people with arguments that global warming is real and carbon-tax is the solution, and then show a second group of people an argument that global warming is real and nuclear power is the solution, people are more likely to accept the idea of global warming+nuclear power solution. What this says to me is that people aren't making up their minds from the facts of global warming, but they're making decisions about the reality of global warming based on their fears of what happens if they accept it.
Re:Did you really need to ask that question? (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's a hint: the universities and research agencies that employ most normal scientists get the same amount of money regardless of the findings on anthropogenic climate change.
That's not true. It is so freakingly obviously wrong I can't imagine why you would say it.
Assume for a second that early findings on AGW said "we aren't responsible for it. Our 'greenhouse emissions' aren't a problem. There may be change taking place, but it's nothing we can stop." Just how much research money into, oh, wave generated energy, do you think Universities would get if there was no real impetus to fund it? Yes, some, based on "running out of oil", but when a scientist can tack on "and has lower carbon emissions" it's a no-brainer for the funding agencies. When that agency goes back to congress and can say "we're funding studies on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because it is important", don't you think that congress will hand them more money to do that? Where does that money go? To the researchers.
Not to mention that the scientists who said "AGW not a problem" won't get funding to study AGW anymore. It's not a problem! Sheesh, Universities are creating Climate Change Policy Centers left and right, based on both federal and state money. Do you really imagine that there would be that much money if the finding on AGW was "ho hum nothing to see here"?
This constant "the other side is exactly as bad" argument from conservatives and libertarians is laughable in almost every instance it is used.
The hypocricy of those who point fingers at scientists (not their research, but the people themselves) who are paid by industry and claim that the source of the money has bought their ethics, yet deny that there is money flowing to those who are funded by the government the same way, isn't laughable, it is sad. Now, before you jump up and down and try to argue that the ivy tower scientists are lilly white ... note that I didn't say they weren't. I said that the hypocricy of thinking that one group is coal black because of how they are paid while the other side is lilly white is the issue.
You want to argue the science, fine. You want to argue the person and deny the science simply because of who paid for it, that's pathetic. It's certainly not how science is supposed to work.
Re:Should result in a prison sentence (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Money sources [Re:and in other news (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe you'll find the oil companies have put hundreds of millions of dollars of funding into 'global warming'
Oil companies have put basically all of their money into funding global warming.
Or is that not what you meant?
Re:Did you really need to ask that question? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be stupid. I think I'm with the vast majority of the lefties on these issues, and my position is nothing like the hypocritical straw man you've constructed.
Both tobacco and marijuana should be perfectly legal to purchase, and to use in the privacy of your own home. Both should be illegal to smoke in a public building. You have the right to decide for yourself what to put in your body; you don't have the right to put it in mine.
Since I don't think that is too complicated for you to have understood, I can only conclude that you were being deliberately obtuse.
Re:Not climate 'skeptics' (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, sounds like denialism to me.
Re:Not climate 'skeptics' (Score:4, Insightful)
So, because I don't reject the crushing scientific consensus because you have linked to one paper (that doesn't contradict the consensus that much if you read it), I'm some kind of zealot? Simply because I require a bit more evidence from you, you throw a strop?
Here is a more appropriate paper for someone like you to read: https://physics.le.ac.uk/journals/index.php/pst/article/view/363/204 [le.ac.uk]
The Real "Climategate" (Score:3, Insightful)
THIS is worthy of the title Climategate, the real scandal is in the millions spent or trying to seed doubt and stall planet-saving policy. (After initial expenditure, hords of useful idiots and wackjobs take over - they are desperate for something to fight since the cold war, there are no longer commies under their beds).
Once again the data doesn't support what the deniers claim. Once again, caught red handed, lying for money.
Deniers: Please please present examples of scientists caught out doing false science for money from whoever has a vested interest in saving the world rather than wrecking it for short term profit, I dunno... EV battery company?
*(In actual fact the volume of emails showed nothing untoward, just genuine scientists doing their usual thing).
Re:and in other news (Score:4, Insightful)
As a previous poster said, the ones making the claim need to provide the proof. All we have it conjecture and computer models...basically guesses. Fancy guesses, but still nothing that approaches the level of "proof".
Any idiot knows, you can't prove a negative, which what you just claimed they have to do.
And heaven knows that researchers who advocate more government control to reduce AGW would never do anything like accept money from the government, which who also advocated more government control.
If anything, government funded reserarchers have more of a conflict of interest than do privately funded researchers.
Re:Big Ego Problem (Score:3, Insightful)
You have no idea how egocentric and individualistic scientists are. There is no causal link here strong enough to override the "I'm smarter than my fellow scientists and I can humiliate them by showing how wrong and stupid they are" opportunity that all climatologists scientists have. Without an iron clad conspiracy, the situation in which all climatologists lie out of interest would be completely unstable: the first ones to tell the others climatologists are wrong would get multiple awards plus funding.
Re:and in other news (Score:2, Insightful)
"Union of Concerned Scientists"
Union of Activists and Leftists and Maybe a Few Scientists Pushing their Agenda.
Re:and in other news (Score:2, Insightful)
Governments want more control.
AGW Scientists want to give the cover for taking more control.
Re:Did you really need to ask that question? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:and in other news (Score:0, Insightful)
Well, you could use chaos theory to prove that climate models cannot make useful long term predictions. But the only people who would listen to such a (mathematical) result would already be skeptics, and whoever wrote such a proof would find his career had reached a rather abrupt end. The scientific establishment would close ranks against him, even though he would surely be vindicated by history.