Miles Grant at Grist has alerted us to a new global-warming pseudoskeptic website, PlantsNeedCO2.org, with questionable parentage. Although "Plants Need CO2 is a 501 (c)(3) non profit corporation" it appears to be closely associated with decidedly profit-oriented types.
The domain name is registered to Houston-based Quintana Minerals, although the company's IT chief, Sammer Arnouk, told me they've registered hundreds of sites to all kinds of groups, including non-profits. There is none of the usual information on the "about us" link beyond a bio of a spokesperson, one H. Leighton Steward, "a geologist, environmentalist, author, and retired energy industry executive" who once wrote a popular diet book. What the bio doesn't tell you is Stewart continues to work with the fossil-fuel industry and, according to another bio at one of the companies that includes him on a list of directors, "is former Chairman of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association and the Natural Gas Supply Association, and is currently an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute."
All perfectly legal, of course (despite Grant's accusation of "Yet more lies by Big Oil"). But who's paying the bills? I tracked down Stewart and asked him. He said it's just him. And a couple of friends. But does he have any corporate backing? Not yet, he said, although he is hoping to attract some.
Steward is a sincere guy who believes the climatology community has made the critical mistake of assuming carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming. He mentions "experimental evidence that CO2 has not been having much of an impact on the climate," although he could offer no citations to peer-reviewed literature.
The website contains all sorts of distracting statements, such as the fact that changes in CO2 levels follow temperature changes in the paleoclimate records. Unfortunately, Steward doesn't seem to understand the difference between a climate forcing and a feedback. He also couldn't resist making a few disparaging comments about the "hockey stick" (despite the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences the graph is sound), calling James Hansen's scientific work "garbage" and dismissing Al Gore as a purveyor of "myths." In other words, nothing new here. Same old tired and discredited climate change denial talking points
Our conversation was frustrating in that there isn't a lot on which we can agree when it comes to the basics. He simply doesn't accept the mountains of evidence that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas, and that small changes in its atmospheric concentration can have a big impact on climate. But he's not a dupe of Big Oil trying to pull the wool over our eyes. At least, not consciously. He's just decided that, after three years of research, he's one of the those non-climatologists who understands climatology better than those who have made the subject their life's work.
- Log in to post comments
Idiot! What is a pseudoskeptic? A cryptodoubter, a hidden believer masquerading as a sceptic? Or are you trying to be rude to "pseudoscientists"? If this is the way you use language its no small wonder you're hard to understand.
A pseudoskeptic is someone who assumes the outer appearance of skepticism in spite of their unskeptical approach to whatever the relevant question is. It's really not hard to understand since it so closely parallels the meaning of pseudoscientist.
Idiot! What is a pseudoskeptic? A cryptodoubter, a hidden believer masquerading as a sceptic? Or are you trying to be rude to "pseudoscientists"? If this is the way you use language its no small wonder you're hard to understand.
ı agree...
Man they don't cut you any slack do they.
The skeptics remain alive on this issue for several reasons; they know that the earth's climate changes whether humans are around or not (and you know this too). And climate science has never been able to say conclusively whether what we are seeing today is caused by humans or is a natural occurrence. Another reason is that historically there is a 800 year delay between changes in temperature and changes in CO2 concentration. This means that through geological history, CO2 has always been an âeffectâ of climate change; it cannot be defined as a cause. Another reason is that climate forcing & feedback theory is a theory only, it is speculation, it has never been documented or observed in nature. Another reason is climate science has never shown conclusively that CO2 controls the earth's climate. They have shown unequivocally that the climate changes but have never shown that CO2 is the cause. Images of melting glaciers are evidence that the climate changes only, they are not evidence that CO2 is the cause. In addition, CO2 is a minor player in the earth's greenhouse system. Water vapor is the 800 lb gorilla but it is completly ignored. When was the last time you heard anyone talk about Cap&Trade for water vapor? You haven't. These are only some of the reasons why the skeptics are still around.
Right, all trolls: let us agree that the man is sincerely skeptical.
He's just simply as deliberately ignorant as you lot are, having somehow managed to learn absolutely nothing from the quadrillions of times that "feedbacks and forcings" have been explained.
Poe, is that you? In case you're not Poe, water vapour is talked about but is not considered an issue for several reasons. One is that because it's already at such a high concentration it would take very much more to make it an issue. Another is that it kinda tends to fall out of the sky within a short period, and it gets added from the oceans just as quickly. Finally, although it is gorilla-like by volume, it is not by effect. Witness the fact that while it is 90% of greenhouse gases by volume it is 36-72% of effect, while CO2 at less than 10% (obviously) by volume is 9-26% of the effect.
Mentioning water vapour is one of those cheap tricks that get hauled out frequently by fools or liars. Percentage by volume and percentage of effect are not the same, and it really should be obvious. Or do you argue drunkenly with the police as they drag you out of your car? "Occifer, shuch a small pershentage of alcohol in my blood cannot poshibly have any detri... detri... bad effect on my drunk driving. I mean, driving."
Off-topic but I thought you'd find this pro-coal, pro-mountaintop removal editorial interesting - http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=66282&cati…
Interesting.
I've got an email in asking to speak with him as well - will report back after talking to him.
The fact that you started calling them names shows how desperate you are to prove an invalid point. All scientist on both sides of the issue agree that the Earth's temperature has cooled down in the last 9 years while CO2 levels increased. The ice in the South Pole is building up and the science is there to prove it. At least Mr. Leighton has the decency to come forward and state the facts. After all, Al Gore invented the internet. Right!!!