Friday, November 27, 2009



OK I really need to get back to my paying jobs... But here are two more ClimateGate posts to throw into the mix. (Both links come from ClimateDepot, which admittedly is the Drudge Report of global warming skepticism.)

* First you've got this minor IPCC contributing author arguing that big guns Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process. A good excerpt:
I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research.

I thank explicitely Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter of the IPCC report. As it destills from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge of the hockey-stick graph.

* Richard Littlemore of DeSmogBlog thinks that Jones et al., like Nixon, are handling their -Gate very poorly, and thinks Jones should offer to resign. Just so you know, DeSmogBlog is not exactly a friend of Big Oil. If you search for my name on their site, you learn all you need to know about me:
DeSmogBlog thoroughly investigates the academic and industry backgrounds of those involved in the PR spin campaigns that are confusing the public and stalling action on global warming. If there's anyone or any organization, ( i.e. scientist, self-professed "expert," think tank, industry association, company) that you would like to see researched and reported on DeSmogBlog, please contact us here and we will try our best.

If you need something more quickly, please let us know and we can arrange to have the process expedited for a small fee to cover research costs.
Robert P. Murphy

Murphy and the Institute for Energy Research

Murphy is listed as an economist for a Houston, Texas-based think tank called the Institute for Energy Research (IER). The IER has received over $200,000 in funding from oil-giant ExxonMobil.

The IER has strong links to other well-known industry-friendly organizations.

Robert Bradley, the president of IER, is listed as an "Adjunct Scholar" for the Cato Institute and an "Expert" for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Listed on the IER website are Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute, Tom Tanton of the Pacific Research Institute and Joel Schwartz of the American Enterprise Institute. Combined, these organizations have received over $4.5 million in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Of the six listed IER Board of Directors, two are directly affiliated with IER, one is with the American Enterprise Institute and three are involved in the energy sector.

The IER operates a second site called Facts On Energy.

I learned little about you from reading that snippet, Bob. In fact, most of that piece wasn't even devoted to you.
On a side note. I always wonder, do these organizations also provide funding information on the people who work for governments, or recieve monies from governments or international organizations like the U.N.? Do they outline specific amounts - salaries of government employees, how much they've received in grants or other funding? From what I've read, Phil Jones, as an example, had hit the jackpot.

After all, the governmental and extra-governmental funding set aside for climate research has to dwarf any such funding from private organizations. Why wouldn't one be just as skeptical, if not more, of analysis coming from those working on the governmental dime?
1. Prof. Murphy: I'm amazed that DeSmogBlog failed to refer to your ritual sacrifices of bunnies, puppies and kittens.

2. On a serious note, I've come to the conclusion that the "progressives", including the Global Warming crowd, consist of "economics deniers". Their world-view is based upon the notion that the self evident laws of economics do not actually exist and that anyone who insists that they do exist is a racist fringe loon. This explains why the can't and won't bother to even examine ABCT. They fear that allowing their little brains the slightest insight into economics would be the end of their world-view. And they would be right.
Typos typos typos. I previously meant to say:

This explains why THEY can't and won't bother to even examine ABCT.
Rick C is on the right track. All humans are motivated by the source of their well-being and in the extreme will lie, cheat and steal to defend it. I think this is true on both sides of the global-warming debate. However, the supporters are primarily funded by taxes coerced from citizens rather than voluntary contributions.

If their arguments are so weak they can't even be supported by voluntary contributions, their arguments have already been found wanting by the competition in the marketplace of ideas. More importantly since their ideas are funded by the theft of taxation, their arguments will necessarily serve to defend more theft and will have nothing to do with the search for truth.
But, Bob, you have to keep up with Paul Krugman. He says there is "tremendously more money in being a skeptic."
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]