George Monbiot’s denial fantasy tweet

en: Picture of George Monbiot at the Make Pove...

Image via Wikipedia

UPDATE: About an hour after this story was posted, Monbiot backs down, see below. – Anthony

===========================================

Sheesh, can’t these people read? I find the timing of this more than coincidental.

George Monbiot tweets:

Secret funding of climate change deniers exposed again: bit.ly/m6Yjlp. Key issue here is that interests never declared.

Soon and Balliunas 2003:

Acknowledgements. This work was supported by funds from the American Petroleum Institute (01-0000-4579),…

Paper here (PDF)

here’s the full acknowledgment:

Acknowledgements. This work was supported by funds from
the American Petroleum Institute (01-0000-4579), the Air
Force Office of Scientific Research (Grant AF49620-02-1-
0194) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(Grant NAG5-7635). The views expressed herein are those of
the authors and are independent of the sponsoring agencies.
We have benefitted greatly from the true and kind spirit of
research communications (including a preview of their
thoughts) with the late Jean Grove (who passed away on January
18, 2001), Dave Evans, Shaopeng Huang, Jim Kennett,
Yoshio Tagami and Referee #3. We thank John Daly, Diane
Douglas-Dalziel, Craig and Keith Idso for their unselfish contributions
to the references. We also thank the Editor, Chris
de Freitas, for very helpful editorial changes that improved
the manuscript. We are very grateful to Maria McEachern,
Melissa Hilbert, Barbara Palmer and Will Graves for invaluable
library help, and both Philip Gonzalez and Lisa Linarte
for crucial all-around help.

There’s been a swarm of such news items happening this week in an attempt to discredit climate skeptics. ICCC6 is getting some press, and in response these claims of “secret” get circulated. How transparent. The other LOL is from washed up science writer David Appell (who runs an angry blog called Quarksoup) expressing “being stunned” that WUWT readers haven’t denounced a supposed recent death threat that occurred in Australia 5 years ago that was “repackaged” for the present. Trouble is, the press is onto the scam.

Monbiot also tweets:

Is there a single prominent denier who won’t turn out to have been funded by an oil or coal company, or by the Koch brothers?

Well I once had a Shell Oil credit card for which I got cashback credits on purchases, so I guess that makes me guilty.

Bishop Hill quips:

Now obviously there’s a bit of Monbiot “puff” going on here, but I think we should look on this enthusiasm for disclosure of conflicts of interest as an area in which widespread agreement should be possible.

Perhaps George would like to consider a joint call (a) for the IPCC to activate its COI policy for all AR5 working groups with immediate effect and (b) for climate journals to require disclosure of conflicts of interest in the way that medical journals do. I’ll write and ask him.

How about it Monbiot? Goose, gander, and all that.

h/t to reader PaulM

================================================================

UPDATE: About an hour after this story was posted, on his Twitter feed, Monbiot recognizes his error.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

174 Responses to George Monbiot’s denial fantasy tweet

  1. Bishop Hill says:

    No reply from George yet – I asked five hours ago. Give him time though.

  2. David, UK says:

    I have evidence that many prominent Climate Alarmists are being secretly funded by governments with taxpayer money. Having said that, as long as all raw data and codes are made public for the purpose of replication, then it matters not a jot where the funding originates. Hey, Georgie baby?

  3. John Marshall says:

    Does Monbiot mention the Greenpeace bung from BP? No he does not.

    He is so short sighted he should have gone to ‘Specksavers’

  4. Mindbuilder says:

    What about this supposed quote of Soon seen in a Slashdot headline yesterday? Is it accurate? Is it misleading?

    [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.’

  5. JohnH says:

    Would that be the same 5 hours Greenpeace gave to VW when they published a report on VW. ;)

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/motoring-news/vw-named-as-europes-least-green-car-maker-2303655.html

    VW, jointly owned by Qatar Petroleum and the German state of Lower Saxony, said it had not had time to respond properly to Greenpeace’s report, despite being given five hours to do so. Five hours !!!!!

  6. Garth says:

    Hi

    The bit.ly/m6Yjlp doesn’t work.

    It has got caught up with your URL: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/01/george-monbiots-denial-fantasy-tweet/bit.ly/m6Yjlp

    cheers

  7. D. Holliday says:

    Is there a single prominent AGW supporter that isn’t funded by the Government, an Environmental Organization, or some save the world foundation?

  8. Truth Wins in the End says:

    If I was Soon and Balliunas, then I’d sue him.

  9. Johm says:

    Monbiot is an idiot of Tamino proportions.

    Ignore

  10. 1DandyTroll says:

    Ha ha only in Monbiot’s apparent delusional world is there a difference between GE Wind and GE Oil, like they aren’t both owned by GE Energy.

    Most green NGO’s are funded by energy companies and those NGO’s don’t care one wit how “dirty” by coal, oil, and nuclear, the owners are of those energy companies.

    But, of course, what’s reality to socialists propaganda in the minds of socialists?

    Why communism failed: they sported only the crack pots out in public. Of course they couldn’t do nothing else since they only consisted of greedy crack pots to begin with. :p

  11. polistra says:

    Wouldn’t worry too much about this. Most politically aware people understand that corporations like to support both sides of an important question. Most politically aware people also understand that funding is a lagging variable. Lobbyists will give more support to a politician who already takes their side in a reliable way. Soon was working on CO2 for a long time before he got any support from corporations, and I’m sure he wouldn’t have switched from science to pseudo-science if Greenpeace had thrown money at him.

  12. PaulM says:

    Other papers are available on Soon’s web site.

    Dyck, Soon et al 2007 paper on polar bears:

    W. Soon’s effort for the completion of this paper was partially supported by grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation

    Soon 2005 paper on solar influence on the arctic:

    This scientific research was supported by generous grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation.

    See also the famous (558 citations) 1974 paper of Gordon Manley, “Central England temperatures: monthly means 1659 to 1973″ which says

    I am indebted to the Shell Organisation for a personal research grant…

    See also WUWT post on climategate emails showing CRU scientists seeking funding from oil companies.

  13. RockyRoad says:

    Monbiot is a tweeter hack. That’s it. He’s completely irrelevant to the discussion. (Or is “useful tool” a better description?)

  14. DocD says:

    I get confused these days by who the bogeymen are. Why not so long ago it was Halliburton and Karl Rove. Now its “an oil company” and the Koch brothers with the wicked mind control skills. Presumably in 5 years time it’ll be Martha Stewart and the home shopping network. Makes as much sense as what loons like Monbiot seem to believe.

  15. Jimbo says:

    If, as Moonbat insinuates, oil funding means suspect research then:
    CRU’s research is suspect.
    Stanford’s Global Climate and Energy Project is suspect.

  16. Jason Joice M.D. says:

    “Well I once had a Shell Oil credit card for which I got cashback credits on purchases, so I guess that makes me guilty.”

    LULZ!!!

  17. stephen richards says:

    What can one say about Monbiot. Well, nothing. He is a nothing. Too long as an activist and not long enough as an investigative journalist.

  18. James Sexton says:

    Mindbuilder says:
    July 1, 2011 at 4:44 am

    What about this supposed quote of Soon seen in a Slashdot headline yesterday? Is it accurate? Is it misleading?
    ================================================================

    Lol, given the in depth analysis slashdot gave, what do you think? What happened to when people could discern for themselves. Back in the day, people were laughed at for believing the National Inquirer. Now there’s thousands of web equivalents and people take them serious.

    I’m not saying it is or isn’t true. I’m saying I’m incredulous at the validity people would lend a paragraph gossip about what someone else stated. Let me guess, you read “Pop Tarts” also.

  19. Hector Pascal says:

    ‘We have benefitted greatly from the true and kind spirit of
    research communications (including a preview of their
    thoughts) with the late Jean Grove (who passed away on January
    18, 2001)……’

    Jean Grove wrote The Little Ice Age (Methuen 1988, 495pp). It is encyclopedic. I was told that there was to be a second edition. RIP Jean Grove, thanks for you book which sits in front of me now.

  20. chris y says:

    I replied to a comment on Soon and big oil made at DotEarth yesterday with this-

    re #9, Ike Solem- Thanks for the heads-up on research institutions that can no longer be trusted, having been sullied by funding from ‘big oil’. In this case, the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astro-Physics.

    But then we should at least add Stanford, UC Berkeley, LBNL, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Princeton to your list, right?

    From Donna Laframboise-
    http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/06/bp-greenpeace-big-oil-ja

    “BP is funding research into “ways of tackling the world’s climate problem” at Princeton University to the tune of $2 million per year for 15 years

    BP is funding an energy research institute involving two other US universities to the tune of $500 million – the aim of which is “to develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment”

    ExxonMobil itself has donated $100 million to Stanford university so that researchers there can find “ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming””

    Perhaps we should add to the list any University that has endowment investments in ‘big oil’, since dividends from those investments are paying for research projects and infrastructure and student stipends and chaired professorships at the Universities.

  21. Jim says:

    Moonbat always comes across as a weak sort of a character with shallow intellect. His biggest strenght(also his weakness) is that he is a follower rather than a leader.

    Great journalists lead a debate, not take sides in it. But the guy kows his limits and has to make a living, so taking sides is far more rewarding than the hard work involved in intellectual and scientific journalism. George by nature was always going to be a disciple, the perfect stooge for the warmist brigade.

  22. JohnH says:

    http://twitter.com/#!/GeorgeMonbiot

    I got something wrong abt Willie Soon. I suggested he’d never declared his fossil fuel funding. Unlike many, it turns out he has. Apologies.

    Greorge admitts error, points awarded

  23. I suggest Mr Monbiot show his displeasure by refusing ever again to buy petroleum products.

  24. tallbloke says:

    chris y says:
    July 1, 2011 at 5:50 am

    I replied to a comment on Soon and big oil made at DotEarth yesterday with this-

    re #9, Ike Solem- Thanks for the heads-up on research institutions that can no longer be trusted, having been sullied by funding from ‘big oil’. In this case, the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astro-Physics.

    But then we should at least add Stanford, UC Berkeley, LBNL, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Princeton to your list, right?

    Not to mention the CRU at at the University of East Anglia, initially set up with money from Royal Dutch Shell.

  25. Tom in Florida says:

    Perhaps the time has come, Anthony, to finally admit you own a large mansion in Tennessee and a condo on the beach and fly all over the world using other people’s money to speak on AGW for large fees…… oh wait that is AL Gore…… sorry.

  26. Chris Smith says:

    Thanks George Monbiot, for the increase in our electricity prices. You W*anker.

  27. Wade says:

    So to sum up. The Koch brothers are pure evil. But George Soros, who makes billions from oil, is a saint. What hypocrisy. Both the right-wingers and left-wingers are such hypocrites that it is sickening.

  28. Blade says:

    This article is very clear to me, a new meme is emerging, a summer offensive once again attacking skeptics, oil companies and the like. And they will coordinate in a way that dwarfs the climategate communications.

    The reality is that they are never going to stop even if we get 30 epic winters in a row and glaciers roll into NYC again. They are already shoveling the last 2 winters down the memory hole and had the audacity to investigate themselves over climategate and pronounce themselves clean. They are cozy in their parasitic lives and unless there is some dramatic event like perp walks and prison for stealing from the taxpayer, nothing will cause them to change at all.

    David, UK [July 1, 2011 at 4:43 am] says:

    “I have evidence that many prominent Climate Alarmists are being secretly funded by governments with taxpayer money.”

    You know what, that is a diabolically brilliant point. We may have be missing the obvious all along, a classic trees vs forest scenario from being dragged down all the endless rabbit holes. Worldwide, we should have a simple goal now, ahead of all others. That goal is …

    Eliminate taxpayer funding of all climatology. Period.

    Just like cockroaches and parasites, they will always be among us, but the workable solution is to cut off their food supply. Zero the budgets. The taxpayers can do this in all places except perhaps China. It might not be easy but it can be done. In fact the timing may be perfect with fiscal collapse looming everywhere. It would be foolish to not bankrupt them while we ourselves are on the verge of bankruptcy.

  29. Stacey says:

    I suppose we could also ask George why in the Uk the energy companies pay for electricity from the wind and solar providers at 40p a unit whilst they normally sell electricity at 10p a unit?

  30. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    The Trotsky of watermelon environmentalism

  31. Wiglaf says:

    George Monbiot seems to be a communist based on his actions and words. The communist is the ultimate materialist. So, of course, funding sources is very important to him. He probably doesn’t even realize his own hypocrisy. Funny that he has a shirt that says, “Fight Poverty Not War.” In order to do what he wants to do regarding his belief in climate change, he’d make everyone poor and need war in order to accomplish his preferred austerity measures (that would be okay because it would reduce the population). He’d call the fulfillment of his vision the “promised land.” Just be careful that you don’t use up your carbon ration card in his promised land. You might have to stop breathing. Moon bat, indeed.

  32. Hector M. says:

    Special relativity was apparently funded by Swiss taxpayers through the salary of a certain clerk working on the subject at the Bern patent office (possibly pondering the matter also during working hours). Said clerk was an anarchist-pacifist with left wing inclinations, so (if one shares those inclinations) special relativity should be right. Antimatter, on the other hand, was the idea of a right-wing warmonger called Edward Teller who wanted to unilaterally hydrogen-bomb the USSR. Since we do not like right-wing warmongers (I, for one, don’t), antimatter must not be trusted to exist at all. It must only be a right-wing concoction to fool honest folks into funding the military.

    Copernicus, then, was a parish priest, funded by the Catholic church. He was surely a Papist propaganda puppet, not to be trusted. And Aristotle was totally supported by the slave economy of ancient Athens, just as many of the US founding fathers were slave owners: all the logic in Aristotle’s Organon, and all the politics in his Politics, as well as all the claims about liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the US constitution, should be dismissed as merely the fruit of slave exploitation.

    I doubt whether there is some bit of knowledge somewhere that can be trusted after all. Gosh.

  33. FYI: George Monbiot : State infiltrator

    “Monbiot is the public-school son of two active ultra-right wing Tory extremists, and he has done his Nazi parents proud. He has subverted the environmental movement in the UK more than any other state infiltrator. He is the personification of green-washing, and anyone who still admires this obvious shit should be excluded from any genuinely progressive movement.”

    Of course. Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation.

  34. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    Enron loved Carbon credits too. Big oil loves it, as it makes their product more expensive!

  35. TATS says:

    Big oil and big environment/government are one and the same group. This is just a game they play to keep people arguing and uninformed.

  36. golf charley says:

    The original report was by Greenpeace US

    If you are stupid enough to rely on Greenpeace reports and press releases, what can you expect?

  37. geo says:

    Re the Oz death threats, even if the most recent was 12 months ago, I had to do a double-take on the description. . . “an offhand remark made in person”.

    Describing a death threat as an “offhand remark” when it is made “in person”?! My goodness, remarkably phlegmatic types, those Aussies. Me, I tend to get uncomfortable when the fellow threatening to kill me is standing right in front of me. . .

  38. Joshua says:

    Ah yes, another day, another thread at WUWT whining incessantly about accusations regarding the influence of funding on “anti-consensus” scientists – from people who whine incessantly about the influence of funding on “consensus” scientists.

    If you didn’t have hypocrisy – what would you have left?

  39. Joshua says:

    George Monbiot seems to be a communist based on his actions and words.

    Wait – you forgot to add the bit about Saul Alinsky.

    Oh, and you forgot to add the bit about Nazis and Eugenicists.

    You guys are starting to slip.

  40. Eric Gisin says:

    I don’t know why twitter is so popular, it’s mostly noise and gossip from narcissists. The only practical use for it is real-time reporting.

  41. Matt Skaggs says:

    I suspect that this smear campaign may backfire by causing folks to read Soon and Balliunas 2003. The Hockey Team was quite successful in strawmanning the paper, to the extent that it pretty much disappeared from the conversation. If you read what Mann wrote about it, you would think that S&B 2003 was an attack on AGW theory. The paper was actually a reasonable meta-analysis attempt to contextualize the “catastrophe” part of CAGW by showing that paleoclimate researchers unaffiliated with the team were not finding evidence of impending catastrophe.

  42. Dennis Cox says:

    The funding of research by big oil is only a problem if they interfere in the doing of the science they’ve funded. If the science is done well, and the results are transparent, and can be replicated, then the science increases human knowledge. And it is immaterial where the funding to do it comes from.

    I don’t want to be the devil’s advocate here. But it seems like, on the subject of research funding, the big oil companies are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. If they weren’t funding any research at all, they’d be accused of not giving anything back. And they’d really catch hell. If they didn’t fund those research programs, and organizations, who would?

    Personally, as an independent researcher, struggling to come up with the funds to do field work, I am completely shameless. As long as I don’t have to commit a crime, or sell myself, I don’t give a rip where the money comes from.

    There ain’t no such thing as free lunch. And there ain’t no such thing as ‘clean’ money. If researchers are to eschew the tainted moneys of ‘Big Oil’, who else has pockets so deep?

  43. Les Johnson says:

    So called “skeptics” go out of their way, to avoid being associated with oil money.

    From personal experience, I had offered to fund the page charge for one group of authors. After some discussion, they decided against my funding, as even the appearance of oil money would hurt the message (which was the data itself, not the political message).

    This, in spite of the “oil money” being second hand. I am employed by “oil”. The money is my own, but the authors declined.

    It should be noted that I am also involved in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

  44. AJB says:

    Wiglaf says July 1, 2011 at 6:24 am

    George Monbiot seems to be a communist based on his actions and words.

    You can read all about it here. Probably better to spend the cash on a decent cup of coffee and an iced bun though.

  45. Magnus says:

    How the guardian can allow for this clown to be spewing his nonsense about in their paper is beyond my comprehension. It is not his beliefs, but his childish rhetoric and mindless reasoning that puts guardian in the little leagues when it comes to climate debate.

  46. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Well done George. Wrong again.

  47. PhilJourdan says:

    You got cash back from your Shell card????? Damn! You are in bed with big oil! All I got from my Amoco card was a T-Shirt!

  48. Ken Hall says:

    D Holliday, “Is there a single prominent AGW supporter that isn’t funded by the Government, an Environmental Organization, or some save the world foundation?”

    Yes several of them are funded by oil companies…. No really! Shell, BP, Texaco all have extensive environmental research grants which end up funding the natural climate change deniers. Not that these climate alarmists would ever dare admit to such funding.

  49. Jeff Alberts says:

    Messages from Twitter should not be called “tweets”, they should be called “twits”, because that’s about all they’re worth. I refuse to be moved by someone’s 140 characters.

    Monbiot sent out a twit today, Palin sent out a twit today, Tracy Morgan sent out a twit today, Paris Hilton sent out a twit today…

    See? It works.

  50. Jeff Alberts says:

    “There ain’t no such thing as free lunch.”

    My company gives me a free lunch once in a while.

  51. Jeff Alberts says:

    “It should be noted that I am also involved in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).”

    Sorry to hear that. Do you often undertake useless enterprises?

  52. Pamela Gray says:

    So…correct me if I’m wrong, but when a journalist/reporter does not check for accuracy, they lose their job. Right? Ask Dan. He did. So Moonbat needs to pack a little cardboard box filled with his desk nicknacks. Yes?

  53. Charlie says:

    *sigh* I got scholarship for my masters degree by some European science and petroleum R&D fund that I forget the details of now – it had no bearing on the choice or direction of my thesis or the way I conducted my studies. People who point at funding sources and go *aaahhhh, looook, big oil! – denier!! burn!!* need to have crystal clear evidence that the research was biassed or advocated as a result of the funding or I can foresee libel action ahead.

  54. Bernie Kelly says:

    Though I am a full blooded CAGW skeptic, I can see a degree of humility and sincerity in George Monbiot missing in many of the fanatics. He went against the grain in declaring qualified support for nuclear power, and will admit when he believes he is wrong.
    He may turn out to be an unlikely ally

  55. Ron Williams says:

    I seem to remember the rumor that the Doxology was sung at the Rockefeller cathedral, University of Chicago, as “Praise John from whom Oil Blessings Flow”.

  56. William Sears says:

    Hector M.

    I believe that Paul Dirac is usually given the credit for predicting anti-matter (positron) and Carl Anderson for its discovery, although others were involved in earlier speculation on the subject. I’m not sure in what sense Teller was right wing, let alone a warmonger; maybe you know something that I don’t.

  57. Rod Everson says:

    I note that no one has picked up on the “Unlike many” comment in Monbiat’s correction. Given that his initial comment was exactly wrong, shouldn’t he now be pestered to list at least two or three of the “many” he refers to in his correction. After all, he’s indicting those “many” now, instead of Soon.

    The quote: “Unlike many, it turns out he (Soon) has” (listed his oil funding). Again, who are among the “many”? It seems reasonable to ask him for names.

  58. Hector M. says:

    Wiglaf comments: “George Monbiot seems to be a communist based on his actions and words. The communist is the ultimate materialist. So, of course, funding sources is very important to him.”

    Nope. This is so-called vulgar materialism, alleging economic motivations for each individual act, which has nothing to do with Marx or communism, which were thinking (much like Smith or Ricardo) that economic facts “define the general conditions for social life”. Marx, in fact, was funded all his life by the profits his pal Friedrich Engels was getting from his family’s cotton factory in Manchester, i.e., his hours and years digesting economics books at the British Museum and writing mighty tomes on capital and economic theory, were directly financed by the surplus value created by Victorian workers labouring countless hours a day for miserable wages, and appropriated by the mill owners, the Engels family.

    The idea that science responds to “interests”, and that said interests influence science contents and infect its validity was advanced mostly by jaded French post modernists “philosophes”, comfortably debating their ideas at some Rive Gauche café or sedately expounding in the Sorbonne. Chiefly by folks like Michel Foucault, who regard knowledge as a form of power and see “interests” dominating the whole of science. Also by guys in the so-called “strong programme” of the sociology of knowledge, like David Bloor or Bruno Latour, claiming that external reality has nothing to do with science statements, which are governed instead by the petites guerres among lab scientists, and largely determined by “interests” funding them.

  59. Latimer Alder says:

    As it’s confession time I must make mine.

    I must be a shill for Big Oil. Between 1970 and 1973 (ish) I worked after school and at weekends as a pump jockey at the local ARCO service station. From memory I got 25p per hour (17.5p in the week) and 1p for each pint of oil I sold.

    This largesse has had a profound influence on my life and I have been in complete thrall to the petroleum industry ever since. Perhaps it also explains why my normal mode of transport is a one Latimer Power pushbike. And electric trains.

  60. AJB says:

    Bernie Kelly says July 1, 2011 at 8:05 am

    Bernie, you’re obviously in dire need a new shirt. One of these should do the trick :-)

  61. ferd berple says:

    Scarlet Pumpernickel says:
    July 1, 2011 at 6:52 am
    Enron loved Carbon credits too. Big oil loves it, as it makes their product more expensive!

    Big Oil loves carbon credits because it makes coal more expensive than oil, increasing demand for oil, increasing profits for Big Oil. The higher the carbon credits, the more power plants will be forced to switch from coal to oil and gas.

    In the US this is now being done using the EPA. Large investors got in early and invested heavily. They are now pushing this agenda to reap the rewards.

    This has nothing to do with saving the environment. What is has to do with is politicians using the “green movement” to favor some industries over others. Friends of the government and other insiders invest in these industries beforehand and make a financial killing. Otherwise it would make no sense to spend 100 million dollars on an election campaign to take a job that pays $150 thousand a year.

    This is nothing new. When the railroads were built, insiders bought up the land along the route and made fortunes. The same thing happened when the highway system was built. Now we are seeing the EPA in the US being used to favor oil and gas over coal, with trillions to be made for the Washington insiders. And people still ask why the US debt is increasing at such an alarming rate.

  62. SteveSadlov says:

    A few months ago Monbiot seemed to be dialing things back, apparently chastened by Climategate. But now he’s apparently back to being his old Moonbat self.

  63. Les Johnson says:

    Jeff Alberts: your

    Sorry to hear that. Do you often undertake useless enterprises?

    Quite often, if someone is paying me for it…..In spite of my objections, they continue to pay me….

  64. Alistair says:

    I am astonished at the behaviour of these people. it’s as is someone has pokes a stick in a wasp’s nest. Just what has spooked them so?

  65. Hector M. says:

    In addition to my former comment about materialistic theories of knowledge, let me say that I do not believe either that Monbiot is anything like a communist. From the extreme right, everything to the left is saw in the red part of the spectrum, but that is an optical illusion caused by the particular and atypical position of the observer at the far right-hand tail of the distribution, at a distance of many standard deviations from the mean.

  66. chris b says:

    Does anyone have any statistics on how much of the research/educational grants paid by oil companies ends up funding AGW beliefs versus non AGW beliefs? My guess is 10 to 1 in favour of AGW.

  67. Barry Woods says:

    So why did the Guardian editor run the story (link below)

    Basically a rehash of greenpeace allegations… ie they have ‘found’ evidence of funding, when the interest/funding was declared in his published work…

    A total non story designed to smear by inuendo, considering how many pro-agw climate scientists have received similar funding.

    ie Why no headline – IPCC scientists receive millions in funding from BP, Shell, Exxon, etc,etc…

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon?CMP=twt_fd

    The guardian ‘environmental’ journalists twittered this guardian inuendo article to all their followers

    Damian Carrington – Head of Environment

    Guardian Eco – 45,000 followers

    Guardian Science – 141,000 followers

    I see the ‘independant’ resource for journalists/media – The Carbon Brief have been ‘fact checking’ their stories again, twittering this link from De Smog blog, of all places..

    Another ‘fact checked’ twitter from the Carbon Brief, straight from Greenpeace

  68. Barry Woods says:

    oops, wrong Carbon Brief tweet in the above..

  69. Mark says:

    As real-world observations continue to falsify their model predictions of warming, the alarmists seem to increasingly be relying on spurious ad hom attacks for misdirection. It’s pretty much all they have left. Reaching back to 2003 seems desperate though.

    I think Monbiot is being disingenuous. He’s been around the climate game long enough to know in his own mind that funding runs both ways and far more in the warmist direction for at least the last decade. I don’t think Monbiot really believes there’s much actual impact on anti-CAGW scientific conclusions from funding, but he believes it can be an effective meme to further his “noble cause” with those who aren’t familiar with the debate.

  70. woodNfish says:

    At least Monbiot had the grace to apologize for his error about Dr. Soon. I’ll give him that, and I don’t typically give eco-whackjobs any leeway at all.

  71. Johm says:

    Of course monbiot has a degree in zoology so is qualified to talk about climate science……oh wait a minute.

  72. Bill Sticker says:

    Alarmists have been suckling on the taxpayer teat for years. The EU alone donates millions to their cause year on year. Oil and energy companies fund alarmist campaigns. As does the UK Government.

    Then someone on the other side of the fence earns a few grand and declares it? There’s no comparison. Monbiot’s ‘big oil’ argument is a nonsense.

    BTW: The paper he works for just discontinued their international edition. A harbinger of further cuts to come perhaps?

  73. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:

    Over here in England we refer to people like Mr Monbiot as ‘pratts’.

  74. higley7 says:

    Not only do oil companies fund warmist causes, but so does government big time. Big oil knows that they win with cap and trade—they are not stupid and can game the system—and garner good will by going along with the government’s (stupid, misguided) goals for carbon.

    The warmists complain because skeptics have any money at all, knowing that they benefit from many billions in funding and income of all kinds, including bribes.

    My complaint is that skeptics should be funded with billions EQUAL to the warmists’ funding. THe tiny finding skeptics receive are so effective, imagine what the outcome would be if they had real finding similar to the bedwetting warmists.

  75. John F. Hultquist says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    July 1, 2011 at 8:00 am
    “So…correct me if I’m wrong, . . .

    Okay, you are wrong. It’s probably a function of living where you do. You expect people to say what they mean, and mean what they say.

    Already Mr. Monbiot is receiving accolades for truth, justice, and the American way. Next a pay raise. Then a fancier sounding title.

  76. Theo Barker says:

    I agree with Rod Everson . That was a non-apology, just smearing even more. We need to hold his feet to the fire on that as well!

  77. pat says:

    But no conflict of interest for this fiasco:
    Farce of the wind farms: Power produced drops 6% after calmest year this century

    “Government has spent £5billion on turbines to date
    Changes to jet stream mean winds are unpredictable over next 40 years”
    ‘But a damning report from conservation charity the John Muir Trust found that the UK’s wind farms were working at just 21 per cent of capacity last year.

    Stuart Young, the author of the report, said: ‘Wind power is not what it’s cracked up to be.

    ‘Over the two-year period studied, the wind farms in the UK consistently generated far less energy than wind proponents claim is typical.’

    Developers of wind power have been accused of grossly exaggerating the amount of energy turbines will generate in order to get their hands on government subsidies.

    Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation Dr John Constable said that even though wind farms had received subsidies of £5billion in the past nine years, they were failing to generate decent levels of power.”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010156/Where-wind-Six-cent-drop-power-UK-wind-farms-lowest-wind-speeds-CENTURY.html#ixzz1Qs7Znzb1

  78. James Sexton says:

    Joshua says:
    July 1, 2011 at 7:15 am

    Ah yes, another day, another thread at WUWT …………………….
    ============================================================
    So, you believe we should ignore the facts and allow the alarmists to continue to fabricate information and continue to attempt to assassinate the character of any and all skeptics. Is that what you’re saying? And, if we say anything about the character assassination and fabrication, in your mind, we’re hypocrites?

    Nice try…….. but I do love your lack of logic and reason. Thanks Joshua.

  79. Johanus says:

    Acknowledgements. This work was supported by funds from the American Petroleum Institute (01-0000-4579) …

    Why should we fear or hate “Big Oil”, who creates wealth, opportunities and jobs for the entire planet?

    “Big Government” is the one to fear, who destroys jobs and opportunities, and devours the wealth of those who do succeed.

    Ironic that Big Government’s funding (secret or not) of the CAGW scam causes no concern at all.

    Comrade Lysenko would be proud.

  80. David, UK says:

    RockyRoad says:
    July 1, 2011 at 5:11 am

    Monbiot is a tweeter hack. That’s it. He’s completely irrelevant to the discussion. (Or is “useful tool” a better description?)

    Useful or not, he is a tool.

  81. David, UK says:

    Jim says:
    July 1, 2011 at 5:57 am

    Great journalists lead a debate, not take sides in it.

    Respectfully, great journalists report the debate.

  82. Les Johnson says:

    I have to agree with Bernie. At least Monbiot admits error. He changed position In this case, and in the case of nukes.

  83. WillR says:

    Joshua says:
    July 1, 2011 at 7:15 am

    Ah yes, another day, another thread at WUWT whining incessantly about accusations regarding the influence of funding on “anti-consensus” scientists – from people who whine incessantly about the influence of funding on “consensus” scientists.

    Joshua I want you to know that when people accuse me of whining they go to the top of my list of people I pay attention to. The more you insult me the more I listen. Thanks.

  84. Latitude says:

    “unlike many”

    You mean like the Air Force and NASA are also in big oils pocket?
    All this anti-global warming fossil fuel funding from NASA and the Air Force….

    …give them enough rope………..what a dimwit

  85. RockyRoad says:

    Stacey says:
    July 1, 2011 at 6:23 am

    I suppose we could also ask George why in the Uk the energy companies pay for electricity from the wind and solar providers at 40p a unit whilst they normally sell electricity at 10p a unit?

    That’s called “post normal economics”. Soon it’ll be coming to a theatre near you, too.

  86. RockyRoad says:

    Rod Everson says:
    July 1, 2011 at 8:16 am <blockquote.

    The quote: “Unlike many, it turns out he (Soon) has” (listed his oil funding). Again, who are among the “many”? It seems reasonable to ask him for names. You have an excellent point, Rod, so (because I’m sure Monbiot reads these comments), I’ll ask:

    Hey, Mr. Monbiot, who are the “many” in your statement (quoted above) that you claim are taking oil funding and are not listing it? First and last names, please.

  87. M.A.DeLuca II says:

    Crap.

    I hate to do this folks, but Monbiat’s a distraction. Wasn’t the original claim, as put forward by Greenpeace and widely circulated, that Soon had *testified before Congress in 2003* saying that he had not received funding from “big oil”? I saw nothing in the original press release that is debunked by Soon’s 2003 paper — in fact it might raise an issue of perjury if he told Congress that he never received any grants from oil companies, but acknowledged their support in a paper published that same year.

    My fingers crossed, I’m hoping that this is more of Greenpeace’s usual shenanigans and that Soon’s actual quote before Congress was considerably different or in a completely different context.

  88. Russell C says:

    Monbiot also ‘claimed’ in his 2009 blog ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/07/george-monbiot-blog-climate-denial-industry ) that Naomi Oreskes put smoking gun evidence online about the fossil fuel industry corruption of skeptic scientist. She actually did not, she only had partial quotes, just like all other accusers, traceable to anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan, who himself has never showed the ‘evidence’.

    She instead had oddball notes on her PPT presentation that said the 1991 coal industry memos (which I spoke about in my WUWT guest post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/25/the-end-is-near-for-faith-in-agw/ ) were at American Meteorological Society archives. My email to the AMS asking about that has gone unanswered, and my inquiries to AMS members and even AMS Fellow Richard Lindzen yields the same result: none of them know what AMS archives she refers to.

    One has to wonder if she is referring to deeply buried inaccessible material…. As usual, all of this is the same ‘ol predictable unsupported guilt-by-association accusation, devoid of a scintilla of proof that industry money prompted fabricated science assessments.

  89. Denier says:

    Ah, lay off Monbiot.
    At least he sputters while swallowing the Kool-Aid.

  90. KenB says:

    When facts, science and sense go against the warmista what else can they do, bang dustbin (trashcan) lids. It’s just the noise of losing it!!

  91. I always scratch the back of my head when I see this “skeptics are paid by big oil” accusation. It is hard to believe that out opponents are so primitive and gullible.

    One would think that it would be obvious that large oil and gas companies profit from high prices created by environmentalist hysteria. No doubt this is why they sponsor such nests of fraudulent “science” as University of East Anglia and University of Pennsylvania.

  92. This is funny – even Exxon gives credence to the science behind AGW. Are they going to do anything significant to curb carbon? No, it’s bad for business… But still. It’s telling.

  93. Phil Clarke says:

    [snip. d-word violation.]

  94. DirkH says:

    Monbiot is mentally unstable IMHO. Maybe bipolar.

  95. Bruce Cobb says:

    That’s some “apology” by Moonbat. We’re sorry too – that he’s such a dingbat. It’s always hilarious when they try to point to funding of skeptics, when the Alarmist Industry dwarfs any funding skeptics/climate realists (actual scientists, in other words) might have received. Sort of like how natural climate forcings dwarf any insignificant warming caused by man.

  96. Laurie says:

    Rod Everson,
    ” …’Unlike many” comment’… ”
    My thoughts exactly!
    Also:
    1. Energy/oil companies and governments will invest in promising alternative energy research through grants and other funding. Hopefully, only the former will buy out any good ideas and companies started, to put these ideas to market. I don’t want the government running energy. The large companies doing it now are far better prepared to provide the equipment and services for alternative energy and related products than the government. It’s their business.
    2. Money from the US government is run through NSF, NASA and other taxpayer supported government organizations. It’s my opinion that NO tax supported research company has either copyright or intellectual property rights. They have been paid for their work and the results belong to the citizens. I would think the same would be true in the UK. What significant resources does CRU have, beyond grants?
    3. I believe activism is mostly supported by the Kochs and Soroses of the world. They help to show what they think is needed, which in turn helps to generate funding from other sources and action from politicians. I hope the socialists aren’t successful.

  97. TMI says:

    We, on the West Coast, have had to deal with Mr. Appell’s histrionics for quite a while. We have the reduction, The Afpel Rule, which states that any belief, if you really, really, really believe it, makes it so.

    http://maxredline.typepad.com/maxredline/2011/02/yknow-that-whole-global-warming-thing-about-that.html

  98. Carrick says:

    Monboit:

    I suggested he’d never declared his fossil fuel funding. Unlike many, it turns out he has. Apologies.

    Until Monboit produces substantive evidence to back up this allegation (other than third-hand anecdotal evidence) that “many others” hide their fossil fuel funding, I will take him to be a dishonest shill for the green technology industry.

  99. Phil Clarke says:

    A note from Soon in 2003:

    “Clearly they [the AR4 chapters] may be too much for any one of us to tackle them all … But, as A-team, we may for once give it our best shot to try to anticipate and counter some of the chapters, especially WG1—judging from our true expertise in the basic climate sciences …

    Even if we can tackle ONE single chapter down the road but forcefully and effectively … we will really accomplish A LOT!

    In all cases, I hope we can start discussing among ourselves to see what we can do to weaken the fourth assessment report or to re-direct attention back to science …”

    I believe Soon is a speaker at the forthcoming conference, themed ‘Restoring the Scientific Method’. Perhaps ‘Taking irony to the next level’ would be more apposite?

  100. J. Felton says:

    Someone might to tell Moonbat that when you openly admit your sources of funding and acknowledgments, it isn’t ” covering up.”

    Now I’m sure that this little exercise has showed ol George the error in his ways, and he is now going to release a paper showing every single one of his supporters.

    I’d be very interested to see it.

  101. Tony Mach says:

    “Unlike many”

    Even in an apology, he still has to throw dirt…

  102. MAttN says:

    Why isn’t he agast that the USAF and NASA also funded this research?

  103. Katabasis says:

    Let me introduce you to the genius of Mr, Monbiot:

    In one particularly illiberal piece he wrote for the Guardian a few months ago, where he asserted that there should be a ‘footprint’ for living space and anyone with spare rooms *must* give them away for accommodating others, he made this claim:

    In the UK we have to pay ‘council tax’ for local services. It is a certain amount for each household. People in a single person household get a 25% discount. Monbiot claimed that this meant that everyone else was “subsidising” the council tax paid by people in single person households. Anyone else spot the colossal error here?

  104. Latitude says:

    Climate Majority says:
    July 1, 2011 at 10:55 am

    This is funny – even Exxon gives credence to the science behind AGW. Are they going to do anything significant to curb carbon? No, it’s bad for business… But still. It’s telling.
    ==============================================
    And you’re buying ethanol where?

    Who do you think is going to be selling you this green energy?
    …and who do you think you’re going to be buying it from?

    It’s not chance that GE got that tax break.

  105. James Sexton says:

    M.A.DeLuca II says:
    July 1, 2011 at 10:19 am

    Crap.

    I hate to do this folks, but Monbiat’s a distraction. Wasn’t the original claim, as put forward by Greenpeace and widely circulated, that Soon had *testified before Congress in 2003* saying that he had not received funding from “big oil”?
    ======================================================
    No, that’s not what was stated. If we’re going to play the gossip/innuendo game, we may as well play it right. Here’s what the previously mentioned slashdot had to say….

    “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.”

    First, there are no links, but it earlier stated, its source was, “Honken writes with a report from The Guardian that ..” So, …….

  106. Alvin says:

    “Unlike many” so he sticks to the meme. I like PaulM’s idea. Let’s uncover EVERYONE and see who gets what.

  107. Denier says:

    Poor George.
    Doesn’t know what he believes anymore.
    Typical warmista.

  108. James Sexton says:

    Now, I ask, will someone quote me the advocacy position of Exxon? Or the Air Force? Or any oil company? Can anyone?

    BTW, the gossip column wasn’t from Harken, but from John Vidal.

  109. Dave Wendt says:

    Somewhat OT, but it appears that even when Hollywood lefty celebs agree with you they don’t forget their copyright. Lucasfilm’s lawyers have evidently dropped the hammer on Greenpeace for their VW: Death Star video

  110. Joshua says:

    So, you believe we should ignore the facts and allow the alarmists to continue to fabricate information and continue to attempt to assassinate the character of any and all skeptics.

    Not at all. Personally, I think that while potentially instructive – where a scientist gets his/her funding is proof of nothing with respect to the veracity of his/her findings. I find such arguments being made by the “pro-consensus” side to be to weak and unproductive.

    [snip]

  111. Garry says:

    @Mindbuilder July 1, 2011 at 4:44 am: “What about this supposed quote of Soon seen in a Slashdot headline yesterday? Is it accurate? Is it misleading?”

    This is from the U.S. government web site GPO Access and hence is the *one and only* authoritative reference to the exact quote:

    Question 37. Have you been hired by or employed by or received
    grants from organizations that have taken advocacy positions with
    respect to the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate
    Change, or legislation before the U.S. Congress that would affect
    greenhouse gas emissions? If so, please identify those organizations.

    Response. I have not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor
    received grants from any such organizations described in this question.

    http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=nsoGyL/0/1/0&WAISaction=retrieve

  112. Matthew Sullivan says:

    It looks like I’m a bit late, but you have to love the “unlike many” remark. I’m all too familiar with that argument tactic. “Person A doesn’t have this quality, but many others do.” Then I ask for a source. “Go look it up.” Then I ask why it’s my burden to disprove such a claim. They can’t reply, but they never concede defeat. It’s so frustrating.

  113. Oil companies have a fiduciary responsibility to make money. No oil company exec is going to run with an advocacy position that contradicts their mission to SELL MORE OIL. Otherwise, shareholders would serve heads on platters.

    Greenpeace’s ad was brilliant. Sad to see it go, but we all knew it was coming.

  114. @latitude: I ride a bike.

  115. Elyseum says:

    AW: they got East Anglia at last
    http://toryaardvark.com/2011/07/01/climategate-fallout-hits-university-of-east-anglia/
    Re Singer yesterday. If you saw his presentation he basically said he did not believe in the second rise in temps (1970 – current?). Basically fraud (that what I think anyway).

  116. Richard S Courtney says:

    RockyRoad:

    At July 1, 2011 at 5:11 am you ask:

    “Monbiot is a tweeter hack. That’s it. He’s completely irrelevant to the discussion. (Or is “useful tool” a better description?)”

    No. A “tool” is a better description.

    Richard

  117. JN says:

    [Snip. D-word violation. ~dbs, mod.]

  118. Joe Ryan says:

    Climate Majority says:
    July 1, 2011 at 12:35 pm
    Oil companies have a fiduciary responsibility to make money. No oil company exec is going to run with an advocacy position that contradicts their mission to SELL MORE OIL. Otherwise, shareholders would serve heads on platters.

    That’s not how the world works. The oil companies are in business to make selling oil profitable. If they sell less at a high price or a lot at a low price doesn’t really matter. In fact, if they can work their way into the alternative energy market against oil they do that do to, to maximize profit.

    It’s the luxury of managing the single most essential product on the planet. They know they can sell oil, but selling less oil for more money and making some money on the side in carbon credits where they get paid not to produce oil (raising prices again) is good business…. and that is what they are doing.

  119. James Sexton says:

    Climate Majority says:
    July 1, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    Oil companies have a fiduciary responsibility to make money. No oil company exec is going to run with an advocacy position that contradicts their mission to SELL MORE OIL. Otherwise, shareholders would serve heads on platters.

    Greenpeace’s ad was brilliant. Sad to see it go, but we all knew it was coming.
    ====================================================================
    No, that’s incorrect and I wish you guys would educate yourselves before spouting incorrect thoughts. The oil companies don’t give a damn about how much oil they sell. If demand goes down, they’ll simply cut production, (thus supply) and increase the rate of return. This isn’t hypothetical, we witness this dynamic often.

    Here’s something else they know, that apparently no alarmist has figured out. Regardless of your desire to limit oil or gasoline consumption, it will do nothing but increase. This is why you see the oil companies funding both sides. One, they’re hedging their bets and two they want to know the truth so they can position themselves properly. But if you think they’re worried that we’ll pass laws that suddenly end oil consumption……. well, they’re literally laughing all the way to the bank,…….. at you and the rest of the alarmists.

  120. Latitude says:

    Climate Majority says:
    July 1, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    @latitude: I ride a bike.
    ==========================================
    Do you even know what a cow looks like?

  121. Joe Ryan says:

    Also, Manbiot apologizes for getting his one bit of evidence wrong that he used to support his argument that deniers don’t acknowledge oil money…. but then turns his evidence of the rule into the exception to the rule that he is now fresh out of evidence to support.

    Seriously, he should have resigned after his article acknowledging the great damage to AGW credibility in the CRU emails… he could have gone out on an up note.

  122. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Twit 1:
    Secret funding of climate change deniers exposed again: bit.ly/m6Yjlp. Key issue here is that interests never declared.
    Twit 2:
    Is there a single prominent denier who won’t turn out to have been funded by an oil or coal company, or by the Koch brothers?
    Twit 3:
    I got something wrong abt Willie Soon. I suggested he’d never declared his fossil fuel funding. Unlike many, it turns out he has. Apologies.

    Thus Monbiot is saying that Soon has yet to declare his secret Koch brothers funding?

  123. James Sexton says:

    Climate Majority says:
    July 1, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    @latitude: I ride a bike.
    ====================================
    lol, yep, no fossil fuels involved in that little enterprise, is there?

  124. Dave Wendt says:

    If we really want to assess who is personally profiting from their advocacy of various points of view regarding the climate it pays to look at the big picture and not to focus on trying to tally every financial transaction over the last twenty years.
    To paraphrase Smokey Yunick’s line about auto racing, if you want to end up with a small fortune from pushing climate skepticism, it’s best to start with a very large fortune. On the other hand the landscape is literally teeming with those who have ridden their selfless concern for Mother Gaia to wealth beyond most folks dreams of avarice. The NGO’s that are trying to limit the energy options of the world’s poverty stricken masses generally reward themselves with compensation packages which, while not in the hedge fund manager class, are very often in the mid 6 figure range. Clever entrepreneurs in alternative energy, electric cars, and carbon trading collect subsidies, grants, and loans from willingly gullible politicians and bureaucrats on a massive scale, before pocketing the cash and heading for the tall grass as their ill conceived ventures spiral into bankruptcy.
    A recent report suggests that the US government alone has poured well over $100 Billion into the climate rathole. The spending in the EU is probably even greater. Add in the contributions from the rest of the developed world and the tally is probably approaching a half a Trillion and what do we have to show for it. The carbon situation may have improved slightly, but if all those hundred of billions had been allowed to flow to the best ideas in a market environment, I don’t doubt it would have improved more.

  125. jc says:

    The best part of all of this argument is the old thing your grandmother always told you: “it takes one to know one.”

    Whenever someone hollers about the source of funding they are also saying outright that they personally would change the outcome of their studies for the money. The rest is just projecting their obvious lack of integrity onto everyone else. It is odd that they can not see the damage these kinds of attacks do to their own credibility.

  126. Peter Taylor says:

    George is a campaigner as well as a journalist. So double standards are part of the armoury. For example, I get regularly attacked for having my views in the daily tabloids – front page of the Daily Express a few months back, the Mail, and Al Jazeera, but they don’t mention the Times Online, because that is more credible. I therefore ought to qualify as ‘prominent’ – having also had a book published (and reviewed in The Holocene, a relevant science journal). I certainly get villified for misleading the public on issues that have ‘already been refuted’. But of course, I would not argue I was prominent in the sense that Willie Soon is…an academic at Harvard. Still, worth slinging some mud…..problem is….I am not funded by anyone. And Monbiot knows this very well.

    He regularly contacts me in my field of biodiversity strategies – in which he has a developing interest in ‘rewilding’ (I wrote the main Uk treatment of the field). And he followed a blog-debate I had with Prof Alistair MacIntosh, author of ‘Hell and High Water’ (an orthodox AGW treatment). So these guys all know my work, my record on the environment, and that I am not funded by big oil, big coal or any right-wing think tank.

    Gradually, this mud-slinging denier-crap is antagonising a lot of older environmentalists – including my former colleague, Jackson Davis, who co-wrote the Kyoto Protocol. We are now working together – again, without funding. An ex-TV journalist paid toward my airfare last year to get out to Boulder, Co., so that Davis and I could set up a working relationship. That is the sum-total of our funding…about £300. Eventually, we will have enough for a TV documentary. We are working at the meta-analysis level, gathering data already produced and reviewing papers. We are both old campaigners too…..and very successful (the banning of nuclear waste dumping, incineration at sea, plutonium discharges, new toxic substances legislation to prevent marine pollution), but we relied on using rational argument, data and forcing debate, not trying to debase the opposition.

  127. Peter Walsh says:

    Monbiot says: I got something WRONG abt Willie Soon.

    “I SUGGESTED he’d Never declared his fossil fuel funding.”

    UNLIKE MANY, it turns out he has.

    It is nitpicking time here as far as I am concerned.

    Monbiot did not “SUGGEST” anything.

    He SAID it. He clearly stated this. It was not a suggestion.

    Perhaps we should club together and buy him a dictionary.

    Monbiot also says; UNLIKE MANY it turns out he has (declared his fossil fuel funding).

    Would the “brilliant” but wrong Monbiot like to elucidate here on WUWT and name the “MANY” please?

    Peter Walsh, Dublin, Ireland.

  128. I bet Soon and Balliunas did not cook the books and play around with data, like that lot of ciminals at the CRU did.

  129. Mann Bearpig says:

    No one reads the Guardian anyway.

  130. John from CA says:

    “Well I once had a Shell Oil credit card for which I got cashback credits on purchases, so I guess that makes me guilty.”

    LOL
    Have a great 4th of July

  131. Stephen Brown says:

    “Apologies” George? Just “Apologies”?
    After you have stirred the world’s MSM is “Apologies” all you can offer?
    I want a distinct and prolonged GROVEL from you for ever having cast your odious aspersions on Dr. Soon. Your apologies should be as widely disseminated as your aspersions; please ensure that this is so.

  132. jorgekafkazar says:

    Calling the API grant “fossil fuel money” is itself a bit of disinformation, since they deal in paper, not oil. Sort of akin to calling the librarians at Texas A&M “farmers.”

  133. Al Gored says:

    Peter Taylor says:
    July 1, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    “‘rewilding”

    Good grief. The ultimate megalomaniacal Watermelon project. In the US and Canada this project – e.g., Yellowstone to Yukon – has been supported by a deluge of junk model-based pseudoscience, deliberate historical revisionism, and outright lies.

    It is nothing but a profoundly dishonest land grab.

    But then, given the post-normal “mission-oriented” junk science called Conservation Biology which is behind it, what more can we expect?

    As I have noted in the past, this is the corrupt twisted sister of AGW climastrology and the two work hand in dishonest hand. This we have the ‘doomed’ polar bear for example.

    Once the AGW climastrology scam has faded, I hope the world will take a much closer look at this junk science. The whole ‘mass extinction’ story and ‘biodiversity crisis’ that the UN is now cooking up is from this same source. Same pattern of fearmongering, gross exaggerations, etc. plus herds of lawyers.

  134. benfromMO says:

    I saw a few people defending the Monbiot, and I think you should be clear, his apology was nothing of the sort really. He as others pointed out had to hurl an insult along with it, and the only reason he supports nuclear power is that he has finally realized that its the only carbon free energy source that can really support a modern country. Nothing intelligent or really smart there, just the same spreading of false information as others.

    Kind of like articles on slashdot that make a big deal about OLD news…climate sceptic funded by big oil….and this is one of the reasons I stopped reading slashdot unless referred there. I used to contribute there daily and always had moderator points, etc once upon a time, but then they became political….I guess its just one of those things that tends to happen…they could have kept their site apolitical and still had quite a few more people (Its always been more of a programmer news site then anything…) But its really a run-down piece of trash now…just look at the articles and the quality of them. I started at the site 11 years ago roughly and I just couldn’t stand it anymore. So as far as slashdot goes, just don’t bother…they post articles such as that and comments on that article such as “Don’t call them sceptics, call them deniers because they deny everything including round Earth theory, AGe of the Earth, and other facts.” – this particular comment is one of the highest ratest comments on that site.

    So you can see, the site is definitly not impartial…its one of those things that you can see clearly. Its sad to see sites such as that lose their way so to speak. Kind of like google recently…they turn political and its the beginning of the end for them. Just watch and see….

    As far as funding for AGW and sceptics alike, this is all meaningless. I think several people have mentioned this, but I could care less about where money comes from as long as its legal and freely given. The fact that they make big deals about this tells us how bankrupt their science really is. They can not argue on the validity of their science, and as such must resort to personal attacks. Sad, its self-destructing so quickly..I thought it had at least 3 more years left of life, but at this rate we are looking at a Christmas present…who knows though?

  135. Gareth Phillips says:

    . I have seen George Monbiot speak on other issues and he is an entertaining and gifted man. Things he says make a lot of sense, apart from when he moves into climate science. On this subject he is flawed, he has this encapsulated delusional system that allows no disagreement or evidence to affect the way he thinks on the subject. Maybe it’s the human condition, maybe its the achilles heel of many great writers, It may be many things, but ultimately it’s a tragedy for him, and for those who in other ways appreciate his writing.

  136. M.A.DeLuca II says:

    James Sexton,

    I don’t get the point of your reply to me at all. How does proof that Soon acknowledged his funding sources in a paper prove that he acknowledged them speaking before Congress? If Greenpeace’s claim that Soon told congress 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” is true — and considering the source that’s a big ‘if’ — then it’s irrelevant what Soon said in any paper; he lied to Congress.

  137. rbateman says:

    Blue smoke is seen coming from the WarmistMobile.
    The old stories keep resurfacing, and it looks as bad as it sounds.
    I suspect that there will be mass defections around the bend if this keeps up.

  138. stumpy says:

    Shouldn’t Monbiot also be raising the AGW scientists under or seeking money from BP etc… its no different the other way around, and “green” companies are just as capable of being “evil” as they are still trying to flog stuff to people and make money in the same way. I know the industry I work for like to push AGW as its a work stream for us, and when times are tough the rhetoric is raised – its all about the MONEY!

  139. anotherfred says:

    Large companies never mind government regulations. They simple ask their lobbyist to change the parts their lawyers can’t figure out how to game. Small companies, on the other hand, who by definition, have no law department, have to stay under the radar. So the big get bigger and the small stay small and everyone just passes the cost onto the public. Big Oil really doesn’t care if cap- and-trade becomes law or not. The idea that they are fighting it is a fantasy. But then again every movement needs a good villain.

  140. ShrNfr says:

    Tweets are for twits. There is a good reason do discuss things in more than a few characters. If that is all the twitter can muster, I guess I have no regrets that I do not and will not use it. I can see its value in “battle” situations but beyond that, forget about it.

  141. 1DandyTroll says:

    @Climate Majority says:
    July 1, 2011 at 12:35 pm
    “Oil companies have a fiduciary responsibility to make money.”

    Oil companies positioned themselves as energy companies a long time a ago and their self proclaimed responsibility is to produce energy for the benefit of the consumers and investors alike.

    Can you with absolutely certainty say your pension fund (and where would it be if it) doesn’t invest directly in companies owning, or indirectly owning stakes in, oil, coal, nuclear and hydro, or defense and porn?

    Or what about mining companies mining for “dirty” coal but also mining rare earth metals to the wind power industry? Of course they’re mining gold as well, that communist hippies buy to their loved ones, at the same time they’re mining uranium for nuclear rods.

    If you you think “Big Oil” consist of a handful of OPEC oil-only companies, then you’re deluded. Why not check the the owner structure online, it is freely available information accessible to anyone, pretty much, with an internet connection, some software and a computer (mostly made from oil and other carbon based materials.)

  142. Richard S Courtney says:

    M.A.DeLuca:

    At July 1, 2011 at 3:00 pm you ask and say to James Sexton,

    “I don’t get the point of your reply to me at all. How does proof that Soon acknowledged his funding sources in a paper prove that he acknowledged them speaking before Congress? If Greenpeace’s claim that Soon told congress 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” is true — and considering the source that’s a big ‘if’ — then it’s irrelevant what Soon said in any paper; he lied to Congress.”

    As an observer of the debate between the two of you, perhaps I can help to help you “get the point” because Soon did NOT lie to Congress..

    Congress asked a question and Soon gave an honest answer to that question. The question he answered was about whether he had obtained employment or grants “from any organisation that had taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change”

    Congress did not ask Soon if he had received money and or funding from oil companies. That is a different question because oil companies have not taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change” (except for BP that supported the Kyoto Protocol and Soon was not funded by BP).

    It seems you may have been duped by ‘warmist’ propoganda that assumes oil companies advocate against the Kyoto protocol and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. They don’t (as several posters have pointed out above).

    I hope this clarification helps.

    Richard

  143. Alvin says:

    Hector M. says:

    July 1, 2011 at 8:21 am

    Wiglaf comments: “George Monbiot seems to be a communist based on his actions and words. The communist is the ultimate materialist. So, of course, funding sources is very important to him.”

    Nope. This is so-called vulgar materialism, alleging economic motivations for each individual act, which has nothing to do with Marx or communism, which were thinking (much like Smith or Ricardo) that economic facts “define the general conditions for social life”. Marx, in fact, was funded all his life by the profits his pal Friedrich Engels was getting from his family’s cotton factory in Manchester, i.e., his hours and years digesting economics books at the British Museum and writing mighty tomes on capital and economic theory, were directly financed by the surplus value created by Victorian workers labouring countless hours a day for miserable wages, and appropriated by the mill owners, the Engels family.

    Hector, did you just post a defense of Marx on a Climate blog trying to defend Monboit? Really?

  144. Denier says:
    July 1, 2011 at 10:22 am

    Ah, lay off Monbiot.
    At least he sputters while swallowing the Kool-Aid.

    I’m inclined to agree. Monbiot is the sceptic’s warmist. He is currently a true believer, but his faith has been shaken badly over the past couple of years. He still clings to the remnants of that belief, but he is hanging on by his fingernails now. And I understand where he is; I once walked that road, and it’s not an easy one.

    Inside a year or two, his epiphany will come, if it hasn’t already. The question is, will he continue to push the CO2 agenda – it is his day job, after all – or will he have the moral fortitude to tell it how he really sees it? We’ll have to wait and see.

  145. janama says:

    There was a wonderful case when a David McKnight wrote an angry letter to the Sydney Morning Herald claiming ExxonMobil was funding junk science.

    Here is the reply letter the following day:

    “David McKnight, of the University of NSW, alleges that ExxonMobil has funded “junk science” with the intent to “deny” climate change (“The climate change smokescreen”, August 2).

    ExxonMobil agrees climate change is a serious issue and is taking action to address it. We are an active player in the debate on Australia’s climate policy. We are taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at our operations and have invested in energy-efficient cogeneration technology that has saved more than 10 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

    The work of ExxonMobil scientists has produced more than 40 papers in peer-reviewed literature. Our scientists participate in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and numerous related scientific bodies. We have supported major climate research projects at some of the finest academic and governmental organisations in the world, representing a range of positions on the science of climate change.

    McKnight has ignored the fundamental point that ExxonMobil does not try to control the views and messages of those whom we support. A case in point: one of the institutions we have funded for many years is McKnight’s employer.

    Trisha Perkins Public affairs manager, ExxonMobil, Australia”

  146. janama says:

    BTW – the whole Willie Soon and Sally Baliunas story is on youtube in 5 parts.

  147. Holbrook says:

    We had a very cold Nov thru Dec and then a fairly “normal” winter in the Uk, no doubt protected by the Gulf Stream which evidently does not exist. This was followed by a relatively warm early Spring with June predicably bringing us down to earth with cold and rain.
    My day at Wimbledon on Tuesday was badly interrupted by thunderstorms which had followed some very warm weather which lasted all of 24 hours…..our summer (British sense of humour)
    It has been drier and cooler ever since.
    It is the weather of the UK and falls in line with Middle England temps records for over three hundred years.
    Just why are people getting grants and governments taxing us over what is quite normal?
    Put away your playstaions now and leave us in peace.
    Enough is enough.
    Who cares what Monbiot thinks.

  148. humanati says:

    Monbiot shows such contempt for truth, to anyone seeking it, it is obvious he is paid as a disinfo agent…
    What is sad, is that people seem to care what he says, but maybe less than used to.

    His column is censored & policed & heavily populated with paid sock puppets to create a false consensus.

    The house of cards is taking more & more to keep it propped up now…

  149. climatenonconformist says:

    Is there a single warmist scientist who isn’t funded by big government?

  150. Joe says:

    I’m not Monbiot’s no 1 fan but he has been talking more sense recently (this example excluded). I even retweeted him yesterday! I think (generally speaking) sceptics/lukewarmers actually share some common ground with him in terms of nuclear power and the conduct of climate science.

    He’s wrong to make such a comment but fair play he admitted he was wrong.

    Thanks,

    Joe

  151. Bill H says:

    After reading through the 150 plus posts it is painfully obvious that the science and scientific method is dead or on its last breath. The funding whores want more money and they will find the right findings to obtain more money.. That is the problem… Science is being used to propagate a lie. to gain control over the people by establishing a command and control government.

    if you want real science then the findings MUST BE TRANSPARENT.. this means that the method and data must be available.. not hidden and kept from view…

    i think there needs to be funding from multiple areas but the pressures to “get the answer” that will result in more or increased funding is nothing more than bastardizing the process… human nature and survival instincts must be removed for science to truly be science…

  152. M.A.DeLuca II says:

    Richard S Courtney,

    I don’t think James and I are having a debate, per se, but rather we’re talking past each other. Similarly, I don’t think I agree with the position you make, either. Yes, I assume some oil companies fund anti-Kyoto/anti-carbon tax activities because it’d be *stupid* for them not to. There’s so much money invested by competing industries to undercut them through politics and technological advancement, and so much money spent by “pseudo-commies” who hate anything that isn’t controlled by left-leaning governments, that I can’t possibly understand how politically-savvy companies like Exxon, BP, Sunoco, etc. would ignore opportunities to fund counter-arguments. And do so while showing “how much they care for the planet” by giving money to those same pseudo-commie environmental groups.

    Not only do I expect them to spend money on anti-AGW activism and research, I think that’s a good thing! Yet you seem to fall for the same warmist propaganda that suggests it would be bad!

  153. Poptech says:

    James Sexton; July 1, 2011 at 5:41 am

    I’m not saying it is or isn’t true. I’m saying I’m incredulous at the validity people would lend a paragraph gossip about what someone else stated. Let me guess, you read “Pop Tarts” also.

    James what are you referring to by “Pop Tarts”?

  154. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Does Monbiot have any Tweets about David Suzuki receiving funding from oil companies? He wouldn’t have to back down from such a Tweet.

    Had Monbiot ever Tweeted about Stanford and Stephen Schneider receiving $100 million from Exxon? That would be another Tweet he wouldn’t have to back down from.

    All such Tweets about David Suzuki, Stanford, and Stephen Schneider would be true.

    I won’t wait for such Tweets though since George Monbiot is a rabid advocate for global warming.

  155. Pete H says:

    Monbiot has a history of getting things wrong! I seem to remember he had to give space over to Richard North in the Guardian for a response to the garbage Monbiot produces!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jul/29/richard-north-response-george-monbiot

  156. Peter Walsh says:

    Mann Bearpig says:
    July 1, 2011 at 1:38 pm

    No one reads the Guardian anyway.

    Sorry to contradict you Mann Bearpig, but the BBC staffers do read the Guardian. Nothing else, just the Guardian!

  157. Richard S Courtney says:

    M.A.DeLuca II:

    I read your response at July 1, 2011 at 7:25 pm to my post at July 1, 2011 at 3:58 pm which was an attempt to help you understand Sexton’s point. Clearly, I failed and I regret that.

    Your response to me says,

    ” Yes, I assume some oil companies fund anti-Kyoto/anti-carbon tax activities because it’d be *stupid* for them not to.”

    And therein lies your problem. Your assumption is plain wrong and displays a gross misunderstanding of the reality which several posts in this thread have spelled out (n.b. including the post from James Sexton at July 1, 2011 at 12:55 pm).

    Indeed, here on planet Earth the oil companies have positioned themselves to benefit from adoption of policies such as the Kyoto Protocol and the UN’s FCCC. You “assume” they advocate against such policies but you cannot know of any such advocacy because it does not exist. To use your language, the oil companies would be *stupid* to advocate one side in such an argument because they would be climbing onto a limb that could break if the politics were to change (and all politics changes given sufficient time). And oil companies are not *stupid*.

    Please consider reality instead of your assumptions.

    And you could not be more wrong when you write to me saying of oil companies,

    “Not only do I expect them to spend money on anti-AGW activism and research, I think that’s a good thing! Yet you seem to fall for the same warmist propaganda that suggests it would be bad!”

    I have not “fallen” for anything.

    Oil companies fund PRO-AGW activism (through WWF, Greenpeace, etc.) and I know of no example of them funding anti-AGW activism.

    And I have made no comment on whether or not funding would be “bad”. Indeed, if an oil company were to offer research funds to me then I would accept every penny, and I regret that no oil company has funded anything I have done.

    I repeat, please consider reality instead of your assumptions.

    Richard

  158. UK Sceptic says:

    Monbiot – ignoring the elephant in the room and obsessing over what falls out of its behind…

  159. Brian H says:

    Big Oil is buying “points”. Outside research funding and donations generally come from the Marketing budget in such companies. It’s pure image manipulation.

    Their scientists and engineers and top execs know perfectly well that AGW and renewables are bullfeathers; but they are confident that when it all collapses they are the energy source of first (and second and third) resort, by necessity.

    They can’t lose.

  160. I volunteered for CVNI (conservation Northern Ireland) while studying horticulture when I was 17 and they are funded by Shell Oil.

  161. Phil Clarke says:

    Pete H Re; ‘I seem to remember he had to give space over to Richard North in the Guardian’

    Just to set the record straight, the Guardian did grant North a right of reply, and North also complained to the UK Press Complaints Commission about that piece.

    And he lost. http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NjgzMg==

    Monbiot makes errors, as we all do, however (unlike many) he is generally diligent in correcting the record where he has made a factual slip. If anyone is aware of him making an error and not correcting it, I would be interested in seeing it.

    He has in fact doumented ‘many’ scientists and journalists funded by fossil fuel interests; there is a whole chapter in his book ‘Heat’ dedicated to the topic. A direct quote will be snipped for use of the ‘d-word’, howeve there is more such evidence on his website in the ‘Climate Change’ category.

  162. DirkH says:

    Phil Clarke says:
    July 2, 2011 at 5:59 am
    “Monbiot makes errors, as we all do, however (unlike many) he is generally diligent in correcting the record where he has made a factual slip.”

    Oh yeah, Monbiot is such a sweetheart. I said he’s mentally unstable. Exhibit A: Monbiot climate d*nier card game:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10

    He’s doing us skeptics a great favor every time he acts like a vile, raving mad slobbering lunatic. Go Monbiot!

  163. DirkH says:

    All the apologists for Monbiot on this thread are Quislings IMHO. Here the great Monbiot is downplaying the Climategate incident live and in color – i find him unbearable to watch; he always sounds like a trade union stooge to me when he gives a talk. You see this guy as a potential ally? Then you’re a warmist troll.

  164. HalfEmpty says:

    I got a tickle out of Dave W. Smokey Quote…. it’s rare you see the owner of the BDGIT drug into a climate debate.

    Still I am reminded…..
    Dwark: Smokey how hot is it going to get?
    Smokey: How much money you got?

    All Hail Smokey! Yes I know, WOT but the FireCracker is only hours away and it’s a celebration of a way of life that folks are trying to kill —– for our own good.

    And: DON’T TOUCH THE DANG CAR!

  165. M.A.DeLuca II says:

    Richard S. Courtney, did you not read Soon & Balliunas’ paper? *That* is reality, sir. They really do acknowledge funding from the American Petroleum Institute for their research. I can’t imagine a more obvious example (that you claim doesn’t exist) than the very paper this exact thread is talking about. Is support for research into alternative explanations for climate change the same as advocacy? If only you and I could have a /friendly/ discussion on that issue, but you blew that! API, Exxon, Sunoco, BP, etc. make lots of public claims about carbon dioxide that play right into the narrative advanced by Big Green, but that’s just good PR. It’d be foolish, however, for them to ignore research that could dispel notions that climate change is heavily influenced by mankind. Research like this 2003 paper by Soon and Balliunas. Spending money on both positions isn’t counterproductive, it’s a form of diversification, and quite sensible for exactly the reason you postulate: changing political winds.

    Oh, and … until you lose that condescending tone when addressing me, I’m done with you.

  166. rbateman says:

    When it gets really cold, expect to see advocacy for a “Sunshine Tax”. If you don’t pay up, they’ll revoke your surface dwelling permit. Get back in that cave.
    As for Monbiot, isn’t he the guy who wrote poetic praise (in the Guardian) for Nuclear Power while the disaster at Fukushima was kept under wraps…. for weeks on end?

  167. Philip Clarke says:

    DirkH – so that’s a ‘no’, then?

  168. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    DirkH

    Monbiot does act like a mindless advocate, doesn’t he. A tree is known by its fruit.

  169. Seems a pretty grudging, mumbled apology, as much trying to maintain the point that he’s still right in general, if not in this particular case.
    Compare it to Monckton’s gracious and completely unreserved and oft repeated apology, The man has no class.

  170. Graeme says:

    the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (Grant AF49620-02-1-0194)

    Oh my goodness Willie Soon is funded by the Military Industrial Complex – run for the hills…

  171. Gareth Phillips says:

    DirkH says:
    July 2, 2011 at 6:56 am
    All the apologists for Monbiot on this thread are Quislings IMHO. Here the great Monbiot is downplaying the Climategate incident live and in color – i find him unbearable to watch; he always sounds like a trade union stooge to me when he gives a talk. You see this guy as a potential ally? Then you’re a warmist troll.

    Garethman responds

    This is a remarkable post. It is the complete mirror image of the behaviour of the Ayatollahs on skeptical science. The type of attitude on both sides which bedevils this debate. I am a a trade union official. It’s my job to represent the rights of employees in my profession. I am also a socialist and an ecologists, and here is the rub. I am also a skeptic with regard to climate science. In the eyes of the skeptical science site that makes me a denier with no rights. In your eyes it makes me a warmist troll. So I am a figure of hate from both extremes. I’m obviously then as far as climate science goes about half way across the spectrum of debate , in the reasonable area along with the vast majority of thinking people. Thank you for your paradoxical reassurance. You may also find George Monbiot does make mistakes, but he seems to be slowly learning. Lets celebrate that and hope that such philosophies become in time more widespread in all areas.

  172. DirkH says:

    Gareth Phillips says:
    July 3, 2011 at 2:02 am
    “Garethman responds

    This is a remarkable post. It is the complete mirror image of the behaviour of the Ayatollahs on skeptical science. The type of attitude on both sides which bedevils this debate. I am a a trade union official. It’s my job to represent the rights of employees in my profession.”

    Don’t know about you as a speaker. I had the pleasure of listening to a German IG Metall agitator once, sent to our company to agitate us. And no, i still don’t like to be used as cannon fodder in some class struggle some very rich Union officials dictate and control.

  173. Joe says:

    Gareth Phillips
    A short comment on:
    “It is the complete mirror image of the behaviour of the Ayatollahs on skeptical science. The type of attitude on both sides which bedevils this debate.”
    I think there is some truth in that. If we could separate the politics from the science and filter out the outrageous there might be some sensible debate.
    When I add comments (i.e. raise an issue) to AGW proponent websites I get shot down – labelled an ignorant fascist (and also a ‘tone troll’ for being polite – apparently you’re not allowed to be polite on web discussions!).
    This is also true the other way round, although I don’t think the sceptics are as rude and offensive (in my experience that is – it maybe my selection of websites). This may be a symptom of the ‘heretics’ having to be more polite to get their minority point across, I don’t know. (Or I may be wrong.)
    But I find you have to fight through a lot of politics, quasi-conspiracy theories, assumptions of intrinsic evil, and tit-for-tat ad homimens before you get to any real debate.

    Thanks,
    Joe

Comments are closed.