Climate denier declines to disclose funding

I'm not normally a fan of Greenpeace. But in this instance they did a great job!

Now how in heck did GWB get into this one Revere? The auto companies and the REA's are free to do what they want. But I didnt hear GWB's name in the header anywhere.

I wont and absolutely wont argue the fact that global climate change is underway. But I question what is causing it. Greenhouse emissions? We keep cutting and they keep raising...So show me the science that says you are right. But I slip from the subject.

The guy above is a big boy and he had to have known that the lefty media would have outed him eventually. They all have their goats to sacrifice.

Have a good weekend Revere. Someone should hit the 500K mark. I hope its you so you wont be out polluting in that 10 year old Volvo. Cant have that now can we?

As far as I know, Michaels is still a research professor in the University of Virginia's Environmental Sciences Dept. If that's true wouldn't he be getting a decent salary that he wouldn't be "dependent on his livelihood" from his consulting firm?

He once cornered me at the exhibit I was staffing at an American Meteorological Society conference. At the time I was a low-level person working for a government contractor. He decided to berate me on how worrying about global warming was bankrupting our future and that my views were biased because I received a salary from the government.

Joe: My understanding is he is on leave. He said he was retired and on a pension but he is not shown by the university to have retired. That's why I said it was unclear.

and research on these questions is complicated by the fact that michaels is a liar :)

OTOH, if an environmental scientist found that a proposed unsightly paper mill would so pollute the environment that it would kill off an extremely rare subspecies of bird, would the fact that the funding of that scientist was from thousands of greenpeace subscribers or an exclusive holiday resort similarly affect your opinion about the accuracy of the work?

bar: Ideally the work should speak for itself, in which case the source of funding doesn't matter. But there is a great deal of interpretation and spinning in play here, so if someone were funded by Greenpeace (most scientists work for Greenpeace pro bono, BTW) and it were their sole source of funds (which would mean they worked for Greenpeace) then they would be subject to the same suspicion. The main point here is that it is now accepted practice in science to disclose the source of funding. We now have to disclose these potential conflicts in journal articles for this very reason. Patrick Michaels won't reveal who pays him most of his livelihood (and therefore to whom he is indebted and/or obligated) which makes trusting him difficult. It is information we need to evauate the work. I disclose my funding when I publish.

He claims that his livelihood is dependent on his climate-spin operation?

Fine. Investigate the bastard for perjury and subpoena his tax records. Let's see where he gets his money.

Oh, and it will probably turn out that he is getting some of it directly from the greenhouse gases industry, rather than all of it going through his company. In which case the company names will be listed.

That would be a hoot.

--

Hey, RK, GHG emissions aren't going down, they're still going up, and even if we stopped belching that crap into the air tomorrow, global temps would continue to rise for between 50 and 100 years as a result of processes already set in motion.

But please do me one favor. Support nuclear power, OK? Call it a hedge against peak oil if you prefer, but let's just start getting those plants built. I'd like one in Northern California for starters.

Revere: I stand corrected. was unaware that funding is declared.

Another issue. By calling people "deniers" you are "framing" them negatively.(a la George Lakhoff?) (note. I am on a very slow connection (24.4kbps) and have not the patience to check stuff).

Incidentally, if the recent study (still being checked on one of the scieneblogs - Deltoid?) is correct, then climate change affirmers are now a minority.

So according to Wiki, you and your ilk should now be called "the deniers"

How's it feel? :)

bar: Being a denier has nothing to do with majority or minority status. It has to do with denying the scientific evidence and the consensus among climate scientists. Not sure what study you are referring to. There is a well oiled machine, oiled by energy company and conservative ideologue money, that cherrypicks, spins and amplifies bits and pieces of information to deny that human activity is responsible for any warming of the planet, or if it is, that any policy could slow, amerliorate or reverse it (which is their main point; they don't care of the planet warms as long as they don't have to curtail any of their lucrative activities).

Revere:

That argument "Being a denier has nothing to do with majority or minority status. It has to do with denying the scientific evidence and the consensus among climate scientists."

Was answered by the Schulte counter to Orestes, which deltoid was attempting to review.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/schulte_replies_to_oreskes.php#…

Of course you could deny the validity of that paper. :)

As a the centerist I can appreciate your argument about a vast right wing conspiracy, but ask you to consider the counter proposition:

"There is a well oiled machine, oiled by greenpeace and radical ideologue money, that cherrypicks, spins and amplifies bits and pieces of information to prove that human activity is responsible for any warming of the planet, and that policy could slow or reverse it. Their main ambition is that they get publicity and contributions from the gullible public to support their extravagantly polluting jetset lifestyle."

bar: Except the main proponents of anthropogenic climate change are not Greenpeace or other advocates but climatologists and meteorologists. The advocates are following the scientists, not the other way around. You do have a thing about Greenpeace. I rather like them. They have guts and have put their bodies where their talk is. Unlike American chickenhawks.

Ah well Revere, the northern Hemisphere is getting warmer for sure. But about that Antartica thing, seems the ice is getting thicker there and has been for quite some time. This is in a place where they said that the ozone was depleted and aw, Hell they said it would lead to the polar caps melting.

As for consensus the fact is that there is no consensus and there are those that say we have to do something now because its what THEY believe. Well unless you want the Kool-Aid fix and knock the population back to say about 1950 levels, then we will have a few wars as a resource rather than a unwanted thing. If we are to believe everything we hear out of the thought mongers on both sides we are in either deep shit, no problem, or that we need more study. The earth IS warmer. It has been warmer yet and that we HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. The assertion that we are causing it may be valid but only about a degree so something else may be causing it. If it is human caused then you go to where the humans are.... ASIA!

If Revere is right then we absolutely cannot allow another 1.5 billion people onto this planet. Why? Because no matter what we do there is not a chance in Hell that it would work ecologically. To have some developing nation that has a bigger population than the rich countries of the world tell us that they should be allowed to pollute for the next 40 years (Kyoto) because thats how we got rich. If that were the case we will all be dead and still looking for clean air in 40 years.

If the doubters are right and most of those are far right and farther, but most of those generally like me dont agree that the Revere's are right based only upon 150 years worth of measurements and a few ice cores. We know it was a pot load warmer 1000 years ago, we also know that the water level has risen about 1 foot in the last 100 years and we might see between 1 and 3 feet in the future. It was 200 plus feet deeper where I am sitting now and tube worms littered the sea beds. Now what in heck did that? Must have been that T-Rex in his new Explorer...

So whats the answer? I dont disagree that the earth is warming. If we are causing it then dont worry, we will blot out the sun and nature will take its course. If we are indeed dimming it, then nature will take its course. If people are the problem and we unleash trapped viruses in ice then nature will take its course. But I can say with a certainty that to stand back and tell people that we can do something about it is ludicrous unless EVERYONE participates. Now boys and girls they cant get an accord to stop some little country that could start WWIV, how do you think this will sit?

The US? The EPA hasnt cleaned up one thing for more than a week before the next one or more hits and we got to pay for it. Most of the time its worse than the one before. We got the gas tanks out of the ground, and now it runs off into the surface water. Emission standards have been tight for 20 plus years, where in Hell is the stuff coming from. We had engines that ran on for minutes in the 70's after the ignition was off because of it. Those minutes were the worst polluting minutes in a car life. Pure fuel dieseling into the atmosphere. Besides it aint the US and it aint the EU thats doing the polluting in a relative sense.

Its Asia and they produce enough for the entire world if you use emission standards, which they dont. Film available, just ask me for it .

Revere isnt wrong in this at all. But he cant PROVE IT. The assertion is that if we dont do something we are all going to be in deep trouble. If that be the case that trouble means sick people, Co levels at the surface etc, disease. Okay, thats the reason they call it life and we might be entering a phase where life expectancy just drops like a rock. And realistically, what do YOU or anyone else think could be feasibly done? So far I hear rhetoric only. Nothing economically reasonably feasible. If we converted to solar, what do we do with a sun thats continuing to dim? If we went to wind, well the wind only blows in some areas. Then there is the cost. There is another Halliburton just waiting to be born and all we have to do is legislate it.

Instead, IMO the planet is evolving and we may be heading out as dominant species as a result. Everything pollutes. Nicad rechargeables add cadmium to the environment, HE flourescents add mercury, Diode lighting, ethanol plants are dangerous and produce more problems than they do fuel, bio diesel leaves a residue on the roads that when wet will turn to a goo, solar panels are not environmentally friendly. Nothing about any of it is economically or reasonably feasible. We could power with nukes but oh shit those environmentals wont let that happen. They also hold sway over the Dems and you cant drill in the__________ fill in the blank. But they sit and say reduce dependency on foreign oil. Okay, well lets drill in say, em Florida??? Thats domestic.

Here's an idea. We ought to drop the standards, burn thru all the oil reserves in the world and then we get to go green in something else. Now theres a concept for you.

But---Are we climate change deniers? Shit, if anything I am a climate change acknowledger. I am though looking for first a real reason to do anything such as incontrovertible proof and none of this consensus crap that I hear is consensus and that includes the UN. They specifically say they just dont know. Then past that I am looking for someone that has a real climate change fix. So far, I think all the alternatives on both sides of the argument suck. Those that would limit our economies just to placate some third world nation is horseshit, so is loading the atmosphere with soot and fumes. So I ask anyone out there, do you have anything REAL to add to the argument that placates everyone?

When you do, let me know. Else I'll sit by and wait and pollute and avoid composting because it adds to the Co2 levels, pickup paper as part of community service, leave my thermostat at 68 and 78 and hope that the problem doesnt increase by almost 1/3rd in 40 or so years by population.

It never gets weird enough for me.

Revere:

"Except the main proponents of anthropogenic climate change are not Greenpeace or other advocates but climatologists and meteorologists. The advocates are following the scientists, not the other way around."

I suppose that I could reverse that, and say that "the main skeptics of anthropogenic climate change" are "climatologists and meteorologists", (as established in the interim by Schulte) and that the people who support them financially are interested in advancing the cause of science. (Just ask them, I'm sure that is what they would say!)

Or I could point out that the GHG issues have been popularized by people like Gore & Greenpeace, and those brand names and their hype have attracted otherwise uncommitted academics, and increased contributions by the public to those brand names.

A friend of mine was employed as a telephonist by Greenpeace. All day she had to ring random people from the phone book and ask for contributions, which (according to her report) were considerable. She was a single mother. Greenpeace was unsympathetic about working conditions and emergency leave, and paid her a pittance compared to most employed workers in work requiring similar qualifications. It was especially small recompense when compared to the contributions that she solicited. Through her employment she learned that those contributions she solicited went to supporting a jetset lifestyle in the best hotels and flying first class around the world for the "executive team".

They seem to be well rewarded for their much publicized displays of "guts" and putting "their bodies where their talk is. Unlike American chickenhawks."

So yes, I suppose I "do have a thing about Greenpeace".

But you and I are trapped in a circular argument. You seem to be convinced of the correctness of your own arguments, while I remain unconvinced because there is another tenable viewpoint.

The root of the problem as I see it is that the structure of research and the promotion of academics has been corrupted by the politics of subsidy. I believe that academics hold their views honestly, but it's like Noam Chomsky's comment about employed journalists. They quite honestly say that they have complete editorial freedom, but (as Chomsky points out, I paraphrase) "they were selected for their position because of the views it was known that they would express".

My views on climate change and GHG are on record: http://barvennon.com/spin/?p=43

To summarize those views: I believe that all atmospheric polluters should be taxed. The tax should be paid to those who pollute less and suffer from that pollution.

Not because of Green House Gases or Global Warming or anything like that. Just on principal. Those who pollute our planet should be encouraged by taxation to reduce their polluting activities, which pollution make life less pleasant for everyone else.

FWIW I am retired, and my income (so far as I know) does not depend in any way on any industry that is concerned with GHG.

http://www.desmogblog.com/schultes-analysis-not-published-not-going-to-…

> The schulte counter to Orestes

Turns out he plagiarized his paper, it was Peiser's already debunked material with a new name on it. Sad.

It's tough when your work is not publishable by Energy & Environment.

Revere: I have two problems unresolved.

1) I do not like labels. I do not agree with labeling and persecuting those who deny (e.g. the Holocaust) as "deniers". Nor do I think that labeling those who contest any notion that a majority hold (such as "GW is anthropomorphic") is an impartial or a proper way to arrive at the truth. Scientific truth is not a political policy that is enacted by an elected majority.

2) The facts established about GW do not support the conviction shown on these and most other blogs I have seen. When the best that a majority of atmospheric scientists on the IPCC can do is conclude that: "there is a 90% probability that 50% of the effect is caused by humans", then I think it is a bit off the straight and narrow for the non atmospheric scientists on these blogs to consider that the matter is "proven".

My introduction of Orestes-Schulte was intended as a query, "how does it feel to be a denier?" OK, so if Hank Robert's comment plays out, then you may be with the majority of atmospheric scientists qualified to comment. Unfortunate, because I don't get to call you a "denier".

It's probably like being a red sox supporter in the NY Yankees grandstand. (As an Ozzie I am not sure whether that image works.)

bar: I am sympathetic in general to your points. Science is not a majority rules enterprise, which was the point of my observation that being a denier wasn't a matter of how many people voted on yor side. But when it comes to science, I think it is germane as to emwho is voting on one side or another, even if it is equally true that science does not depend on Authority. Because the expertise involved in the climate debate often involves rather difficult and arcane judgments that depend on considerable training and experience, the point of ponting to a scientific consensus among experts is to incrase the confidence one has in one side or another in a controversy that involves science.

Climate change is not just, or perhaps even primarily, a scientific debate. It is a highly charged political and economic debate about how we should proceed in terms of policy when the consequences are momentous, uncertain and not immediate but the choices are irretrievable. No empirical (or in Kant's terms, synthetic) proposition is ever provable and I don't think most scientists who understand both science and even a modicum of epistemology would claim it is proven. We have to go on the best evidence we have at the moment, which includes a fair chunk of ratiocination combined with data. in the views of many of us, being a "denier" is a political stance and tactic, the artificial manufacture of theoretical doubt where, in practical terms, much less doubt exists. Said another way, the deniers are people who would not be making the arguments they are making if the stakes were low or didn't impinge on their livelihoods or the livelihoods of their clients. This is not true for most climatologists, who, I think, would be happy to see the results of data nd reasoning come out in a happier way. There are likely some who do see it differently, for purely scientific reasons, but they are not many. In the current context I wouldn't call them deniers but contrarians.

Returning to Dr. Patrick Micahels, it is his refusal to divulge the source of his funding which made me label him a denier. I do not think he is a contrarian. I think he is a hack who peddles climate change doubt for money. That's an opinion. Feel free to be contrary. Since people who disagree with me about many things are probably in the majority that wouldn't even make you a contrarian and certainly not a Revere Denier.

Revere:

It seems to me that Michaels is not the person that is reluctant to identify his sponsors, but his sponsors who are reluctant to be identified.

That is probably because Climate Change Asserters have won the publicity battle, and in the public eye anybody who denies anthropogenic climate change is a bad guy "denier".

Which identification somebody who sells to the public most certainly does not need.

As blogged, I am (with reservations) in agreement with the ends that will be achieved, but totally disagree with the means by which it is being achieved.

Seems Al "Global Warming" Gore is in deep stuff again over and Inconvenient Truth...Its more of a lie. Now it comes to light that he used clips as fact where he was supposed to be hovering over an ice shelf was really from the movie "Day after Tommorow" and he also apparently decided it was a good idea to use the same genre when he used clips from "Waterworld".

Still I will say that the climate is warming. But I wont say its massively from humans and this carbon footprint stuff. If its true and we get a surge, then dont worry. Be happy because no one will be around to enjoy the new dune buggy rides in Saskatchewan.

I am full in the belief of anthropogenic change along with a touch of humanity. We account for 3% of the carbon dioxide on the planet....Where does the rest of it come from? Now theres the Inconvenient Question. Maybe Michael Moore's out burning up the stock shares of all of the oil companies he owns or directs via his trust/foundation? Same thing with Al Gore... His daddy was on the board of Occidental Petroleum.

You are right about one thing Revere......Hypocrisy IS definitely flourishing.

'

Someone finally looked at the credits and background files from the DVD, eh? And thinks this is news. Sigh.
http://www.dvdmg.com/dayaftertomorrowse.shtml

Which DVD Hank... IT or Day after?

It is news when the people who did IT says many things were called into question and the movie was hellbent on ensuring that the Manchurian Candidate got only his digs in rather than science.