Nine of the ten loudest climate-denying scientists tied to Exxon

[Zero Sum 305]

Hardly. The scientists in the UK manipulated data. The scientists in the article just have financial backing, directly, or indirectly, from Exxon.

I wonder where 9 out of 10 scientists who are pro-Global Warming get their funding from? I bet they're not lacking for a few dollars.

But it's all besides the point. Who gets money from where is irrelevant. It's whether their science holds up under peer review that matters. And this article gets nowhere near the science.

Just for honesty's sake:

I believe the actual scientific analysis of the UK data concluded that the data had not been manipulated fraudulently. The only fraud in that case was the criminal access of academic information by hackers.

When something gets funded, you have to declare any conflicts of interests.

Finally, if you compare funds and fund sources I am also sure there would be major discrepancies largely in favor of those backing pro-polluter science interests. We can perhaps one day pool together funding information to play that game on a per-investigator/per-project basis.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So you have nothing. You are unable to find anything from a reputable news source just propaganda and smear sites.

From my previous post:

Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.)

And this is really going to make you squirm....

But wait, it gets worse. The positions advocated by Richard Lindzen, the paid-by-OPEC opinion writer commenting in Newsweek -- he's also written op-eds for a number of other publications including the Wall Street Journal -- appear to be the diametric opposite of those held by Richard Lindzen, the serious meteorologist, when he's writing peer-reviewed scientific texts.

Specifically, Lindzen co-authored the 2001 National Academy of Science's report on climate change. It concluded that despite some scientific "uncertainties," there is "agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years."

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

The report predicts: "increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought."

Global warming could well have serious adverse societal and ecological impacts by the end of this century, especially if globally-averaged temperature increases approach the upper end of the IPCC projections. Even in the more conservative scenarios, the models project temperatures and sea levels that continue to increase well beyond the end of this century, suggesting that assessments that examine only the next 100 years may well underestimate the magnitude of the eventual impacts.

The NAS study endorsed "The [intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations," saying it "accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue."

Here's some highlights of what the IPCC report Lindzman endorsed considered to be "virtually certain" outcomes of global warming (they list other potential outcomes that were only "very likely," but I'm not including them here):

• The troposphere warms, stratosphere cools, and near surface temperature warms.
• As the climate warms, Northern Hemisphere snow cover and sea-ice extent decrease.
• The globally averaged mean water vapour, evaporation and precipitation increase.
• Most tropical areas have increased mean precipitation, most of the sub-tropical areas have decreased mean precipitation, and in the high latitudes the mean precipitation increases.
• Intensity of rainfall events increases.
• There is a general drying of the mid-continental areas during summer (decreases in soil moisture). This is ascribed to a combination of increased temperature and potential evaporation that is not balanced by increases in precipitation.
• A majority of models show a mean El Niño-like response in the tropical Pacific, with the central and eastern equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures warming more than the western equatorial Pacific, with a corresponding mean eastward shift of precipitation.
• Available studies indicate enhanced interannual variability of northern summer monsoon precipitation.
• Most models show weakening of the Northern Hemisphere thermohaline circulation (THC), which contributes to a reduction in the surface warming in the northern North Atlantic. Even in models where the THC weakens, there is still a warming over Europe due to increased greenhouse gases.

In other words, Richard Lindzen the meteorogist is part of the very scientific consensus on global warming that Richard Lindzen the opinion writer has called into question.

http://www.alternet....ntversion/50494

http://www.alternet....ntversion/50494

Edited May 23, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[Poptech 0]

Again a blog, nothing from a reputable news source. Those fees were discussed in the reputable news piece I posted from the Boston Globe. None of those funded his research nor changed his position on AGW.

You also seem confused as Dr. Lindzen supports AGW just not AGW Alarm. You seem a little slow on this topic.

I believe the actual scientific analysis of the UK data concluded that the data had not been manipulated fraudulently. The only fraud in that case was the criminal access of academic information by hackers.

Can you show me this "scientific analysis" and whom undertook it?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Alarmist Challenge:

It is falsely implied that if a scientist went to a meeting for coffee and donuts hosted by an organizati­on that in the last 20 years received a $5 donation from a fossil fuel company that scientist is now "funded by the fossil fuel industry".

- Please provide actual documents irrefutabl­y demonstrat­ing direct fossil fuel company funding for any scientist.

- Then prove that the same scientist has received enough energy company donations to sustain all their research over the years.

- Finally prove that the same scientist changed their scientific position regarding AGW due to a monetary donation and did not hold a skeptical position prior to the donation.

Let me know when you can do this, thanks.

So you're disputing Harper's investigative report?

For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics—Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others—who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns.

.....

In 1991, Western Fuels spent an estimated $250,000 to produce and distribute a video entitled "The Greening of Planet Earth," which was shown frequently inside the Bush White House as well as within the governments of OPEC. In near-evangelical tones, the video promises that a new age of agricultural abundance will result from increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide. It portrays a world where vast areas of desert are reclaimed by the carbon dioxide-forced growth of new grasslands, where the earth's diminishing forests are replenished by a nurturing atmosphere.

Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics

Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world's biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been "widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is."

Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions.

.......

Richard Lindzen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1977 and is a professor at MIT. He is rather well known for claiming that "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places. Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to do with reality".

^,2,3

• How can Lindzen, a member of the National Academies be wrong about the consensus?

Well every major scientific society on the entire planet with relevant expertise disagrees with him. Even the National Academy of Sciences, which he is a member of, disagrees with him. Here is a press release released in 2005 which opens with the words "Climate Change is real". It's conclusion begins with "We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies." It is signed by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil

Royal Society of Canada, Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

Academié des Sciences, France

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany

Indian National Science Academy, India

Accademia dei Lincei, Italy

Science Council of Japan, Japan

Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia

Royal Society, United Kingdom

National Academy of Sciences, United States of America

• For a complete analysis of the consensus which Lindzen says doesn't exist please go here:

http://www.logicalsc...s/consensus.htm

[Poptech 0]

Are you really clueless? The Harper piece mentioned nothing new about Lindzen. He said he took some consulting fees years ago. None of which funded his research nor changed his position on the subject. Then of course you are back to an alarmist blog again.

You have failed to meet the challenge,

- Please provide actual documents irrefutabl­y demonstrat­ing direct fossil fuel company funding for any scientist.

- Then prove that the same scientist has received enough energy company donations to sustain all their research over the years.

- Finally prove that the same scientist changed their scientific position regarding AGW due to a monetary donation and did not hold a skeptical position prior to the donation.

[The Dude 206]

Are you really clueless? The Harper piece mentioned nothing new about Lindzen. He said he took some consulting fees years ago. None of which funded his research nor changed his position on the subject. Then of course you are back to an alarmist blog again.

You have failed to meet the challenge,

- Please provide actual documents irrefutabl­y demonstrat­ing direct fossil fuel company funding for any scientist.

- Then prove that the same scientist has received enough energy company donations to sustain all their research over the years.

- Finally prove that the same scientist changed their scientific position regarding AGW due to a monetary donation and did not hold a skeptical position prior to the donation.

Yes professor, we'll get right on that research for you!

[Poptech 0]

When you figure out how to actually research something, let me know.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Are you really clueless? The Harper piece mentioned nothing new about Lindzen. He said he took some consulting fees years ago. None of which funded his research nor changed his position on the subject. Then of course you are back to an alarmist blog again.

You have failed to meet the challenge,

- Please provide actual documents irrefutabl­y demonstrat­ing direct fossil fuel company funding for any scientist.

- Then prove that the same scientist has received enough energy company donations to sustain all their research over the years.

- Finally prove that the same scientist changed their scientific position regarding AGW due to a monetary donation and did not hold a skeptical position prior to the donation.

LOL....Okay, so Harper's should have checked their sources as clearly, clearly it was all a lie that Lindzen was getting paid by Big Oil to downplay the crises. Of course, it begs the question then why Lindzen hasn't gone after them for libel? It's been more than 16 years, surely he'd want to protect his good name from such smear tactics.

I've provided proof right above that ExxonMobil was funding climate skeptics. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots, for starters. Secondly, the website you provided in your initial post has a list of references that are nothing put peanut gallery denialists, which contradict your indication that you accept the validity of Global Warming as being real. And lastly, you dismiss the scientific consensus that CO2 emissions have greatly accelerated Global Warming as alarmist nonsense.

But beyond that, statements by scientists, if they are to be taken seriously, go through a process of peer review. That's how the whole theory of Global Warming came about, as well as the consensus that CO2 emissions is a significant factor in warming the earth's temperature.

Edited May 23, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[The Dude 206]

When you figure out how to actually research something, let me know.

You're an Ornery little sock puppet.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You're an Ornery little sock puppet.

Actually, I believe his name is Andrew, and he's a computer engineer.

[Poptech 0]

Lindzen got paid as a consultant to give his opinion which did not change and has not changed. He was not paid to give an opinion he did not already hold. You do realize these scientists were all skeptics prior to any of that? The Harper piece says nothing else. Your mind fabricated what was not stated.

You have not provided any proof that ExxonMobil is "funding" the scientific research of skeptics.

Yes I reject all alarmist claims as do all the skeptical scientists in the links I provided. That has nothing to do with rejecting "global warming". Your perpetual confusion of "global warming" with AGW with AGW Alarm is becoming hilarious.

Let me know when you can provide any REMOTE evidence of corruption.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Lindzen got paid as a consultant to give his opinion which did not change and has not changed. He was not paid to give an opinion he did not already hold. You do realize these scientists were all skeptics prior to any of that? The Harper piece says nothing else. Your mind fabricated what was not stated.

You have not provided any proof that ExxonMobil is "funding" the scientific research of skeptics.

Yes I reject all alarmist claims as do all the skeptical scientists in the links I provided. That has nothing to do with rejecting "global warming". Your perpetual confusion of "global warming" with AGW with AGW Alarm is becoming hilarious.

Let me know when you can provide any REMOTE evidence of corruption.

Wait. What? Do you understand the difference between a scientist giving a talk before clients of the company that is paying him and peer-reviewed papers? Sorry, I'm not going to play sleuth for you on Lindzen. If you read what he has said as a consultant and what peer-reviewed papers has his name stamped on them, you will see the contradictions.

As for ExxonMobil admitting that they funded climate skeptics - who do you think these skeptics were? Plumbers? Just some guys off the street? Good grief, you're being ignorant. They paid scientists who were willing to use their reputation and credentials to downplay Global Warming as not anything that we can even be remotely certain about and that even if it is happening, it isn't anything we need to be worried about. And you know why ExxonMobil did so? Because, like the Tobacco Industry - they were ensuring their market share in the future of energy. This isn't the only thing they've dabbled in and to pretend that ExxonMobil isn't willing to spend money on PR is incredibly ignorant. Watch the TV ads sometime and see the 'experts' they use to talk about the future of energy.

Perhaps you can elaborate what you label as 'alarmist' with regard to Global Warming, so that we can get to the core of your gripe here.

[Poptech 0]

There are no contradictions. Any talk or testimony must be directly related to the date as there is an evolved position over the years based on more recent science but his opposition to AGW Alarm has never changed.

ExxonMobil never admitted to funding skeptical scienctists, they said they funded lobbyist groups and think tanks. Your guilt by association nonsense is pure propaganda. There is no evidence of direct funding from ExxonMobil to any skeptical scientist and no evidence of corruption. You have failed on all counts.

Sorry, I'm not going to play sleuth for you on Lindzen.

You couldn't even play a token research assistant as all you are doing is fabricating propaganda.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Poptech

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There are no contradictions. Any talk or testimony must be directly related to the date as there is an evolved position over the years based on more recent science but his opposition to AGW Alarm has never changed.

ExxonMobil never admitted to funding skeptical scienctists, they said they funded lobbyist groups and think tanks. Your guilt by association nonsense is pure propaganda. There is no evidence of direct funding from ExxonMobil to any skeptical scientist and no evidence of corruption. You have failed on all counts.

You couldn't even play a token research assistant as all you are doing is fabricating propaganda.

[Poptech 0]

Still nothing. You can provide any REMOTE evidence for your conspiracy theories about corruption. This is as bad as talking to a birther.

Prove ANY skeptical scientist is corrupt, any of them. Show they held a different position, someone paid them and they changed their position. Put up or shut up.