Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
According to a biased article in the Boston Globe, a man named Kert Davies, the Executive Director of something called the “Climate Investigations Center” (CIC) has penned a scurrilous letter to the journal Science Bulletin, accusing Dr. Willie Soon of a conflict of interest. The article says he was accused because in the past he received funding “from companies and interests supporting studies critical of climate change.”
Now it is important to know that Dr. Soon did not get a grant for the scientific study in question. That work was done on his own time and at his own expense. He does not profit from the work in any way, he was not paid for it, and thus he has absolutely no conflict of interest of any kind.
So let me get Kert Davies claim straight. For example, his claim is that if a scientist ever received funding from say Greenpeace or the World Wildlife Fund, in any future study whether funded by Greenpeace or WWF or not, the oh-so-noble Kert Davies thinks you need to disclose that.
Now there are dozens of scientists out there who have received funding from Greenpeace. Heck, a number of IPCC authors are not just funded by but have been employed by Greenpeace.
Curious, isn’t it, how Kert Davies seems to ignore the dozens and dozens of scientists who have received funding from a host of funders with a clear axe to grind … and focuses on Dr. Soon regarding work that he did on his own dime? I gotta confess, a man like Kert Davies that is involved in that kind of underhanded and deceptive action is … well … I fear my opinion is not fit for expressing on a family blog.
…
Now, after writing the above I had an interesting thought … I thought “I wonder who the CIC is when it’s at home?” And I have to admit, I laughed out loud when the first page I pulled up said this:
Who We Are
The Climate Investigations Center (CIC) was established in 2014 to monitor the individuals, corporations, trade associations, political organizations and front groups who work to delay the implementation of sound energy and environmental policies that are necessary in the face of ongoing climate crisis.
Kert Davies, Executive Director
CIC was founded by Kert Davies, a well-known researcher, media spokesperson and climate activist who has been conducting corporate accountability research and campaigns for more than 20 years. Davies was the chief architect of the Greenpeace web project ExxonSecrets, launched in 2004, which helped expose the oil giant ExxonMobil’s funding of organizations and individuals who work to discredit the validity of climate science and delay climate policy action. More recently, Davies established the PolluterWatch program at Greenpeace, which launched the report Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine.
Well, I guess that explains a few things …
But despite all of Kert Davies’ claims about “secret funding”, I don’t find one word on their website about who funds the CIC … although I did find this intriguing snippet on the web:
… the Climate Investigations Center, a collaboration between former Greenpeace Research Director Kert Davies and the Guardian …
So Kert wants to bust others for where they get their funding, but either he doesn’t have the courage to divulge his own backers, or he thinks that revealing your funding is for the common people and doesn’t apply to him …
In any case, in the past I’ve had jobs working for both extremely liberal and extremely conservative groups … so freakin’ what? Unless they are funding my current work, I fail to see the relevance … and just like with Willie Soon’s study published in the Science Bulletin, nobody is funding my current work. But according to Kert Davies, I should have to put a conflict of interest statement on my work because obviously I’m conflicted from both sides, liberal and conservative.
Kert Davies, however, doesn’t reveal who is funding his current work …
In any case, I just used the CIC Contact Us form to send the following questions:
Dear Kert Davies:
You are attempting to discredit the work of Dr. Willie Soon, not because of someone funding a piece of work that he got published in Science Bulletin, but because of funding that he received in the past. This brings up a couple of questions.
1) Are you going to do the same with every scientist who ever received any funding in the past from e.g. Greenpeace, WWF, or any of the many AGW supporting organizations?
2) Since you are so concerned about funding, why is it that I cannot find out anywhere on your website just who it is that is funding the Climate Investigations Center?
3) Since you are so concerned about funding, are you planning to bust the ex- and current Greenpeace and WWF scientists and others involved in the IPCC Reports for not declaring their conflicts of interest? I mean according to you, because at some time in the past they received money from groups like Greenpeace and WWF who advocate and advance the anthropogenic warming hypothesis, their work is forever tainted and their conflict of interest must be declared in any future work … or does that just apply to people you disagree with?
My thanks in advance for your response,
w.
We’ll see how that goes over … their “Contact Us” form is here if you wish to contact them, please keep it polite …
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I was discussing attacks like this with an accountant friend, and pointed out that there were so much overlap between the groups (and that, like Monty Python’s Life of Brian, many of the groups are “splitters” of teeny, tiny numbers).
His reply may have been relevant: “Well, there is a reason why there are so many holding companies and shell corporations. It can take years for trained beancounters to get to the bottom of “who paid for what”.
Can’t Greenpeace use its current stable of political ankle-biters? Can’t the Guardian use its current media reach to preach?
Or is this just another shell in the game?
I looked on the IRS site to see if Climate Investigations Center was registered as a 501c3 organization or had ever filed a form 990-N and it appears the answer is no to both. I don’t see anywhere on their site that they solicit donations.
If they do have a 501c3 application in the works, it would be interesting to see how long it takes to process, considering some Tea Party organization are still waiting after 2 years or more.
CIC are not in Guidestar either as a charity. It may only exist as a web page. Since Davies works for Greenpeace, he may be funding the web page by himself or a few others.
I think you will find that if you point out a conflict of interest because a scientist is employed by Greenpeace, many people sympathetic to their cause will laugh out loud. “Utterly absurd!” they will yell out loud. They simply do not understand that there could be a conflict of interest. This is because Greenpeace is “morally good” and all the private enterprises whose taxes ultimately actually pay for useful things such as roads, healthcare, pensions, are “morally bad”. It’s really as simplistic as that.
Sad but very, astute.
Progressives are never stopped by their own hypocrisy. Quite the opposite. They live and wallow in it. Dr. Jonathan Gruber was just the latest, vivid example. Gruber has become infamous because, as an academic progressive (the adjective-noun order is deliberate), he committed a breach of Progressive protocol by openly acknowledging the deceptive methods employed by Progressives in furthering their agendas.
That Kert Davies engages in biased claims in order to mislead the public is not really news. And the Boston Globe is All In on the Progressive lie.
But men and women of good conscience can longer sit idly by as the Left destroys our society, one deception at a time.
They picked a bad day to be in the destroying society with GASPROM money business. I am feeling very inspired by the Son’s of Liberty series and Samuel Adams in particular. I won’t be alone in that. It’s got to be a nation wide type of inspration.
If Dr. Soon and his science is not to be considered because of a percieved conflict of interest, should I not consider Mr. Davies and his conclusions due to his conflict of interest re: Greenpeace?
Oh yeah, I already don’t….
Are Pippen Kool and Rooter related?
I’ve never seen them together. Just saying…
Kert Davies on Facebook
“Director at Climate Investigations Center
Former Greenpeace
Lives in Washington District of Columbia”
Probably to ride the Green Gravy Train:
BOOMTOWN: DC REGION HAS NATION’S HIGHEST MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
They have to go pretty deep into VA and MD to get that. Fairfax County VA has been one of the wealthiest for a long time.
And the others? L
Please comment on Kert Davies Climate Investigations Center Facebook post on Willie Soon
https://www.facebook.com/climateinvestigations/posts/799597690076867
Strange that they picked the acronym “CIC”. This is the one currently occupied by “Climate Industrial Complex”, describing the group of investors, manufacturers, marketers, politicians, and activists supporting the introduction of regulations supporting… the Climate Industrial Complex. Some scientists do belong with the CIC as well, but they’re in the marketing department. There is no science department.
Uh, one should note that “CIC” would be pronounced “sick”.
A descriptive “selfie”?
CIC = Combat Information Center
Any sailor on a U.S. Navy surface combatant knows that.
Commander In Chief…
No, thats “CInC”
Is it pronounced “sick?”
So Kert Davies is concerned about conflicts of interest?
I can’t wait to read what he says about Al Gore!
Is CIC receiving funds from Russian Oil?
Foreign Firm Funding U.S. Green Groups Tied to State-Owned Russian Oil Company
PS Willis comment has already disappeared from CIC’s web site.
How long will my comment stay on their facebook page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/…/Harvard%E2%80%93Smithsonian…
Harvard-Smithsonian is funded by
In FY2010, expenditures by funding source were as follows:
NASA: 70%
Smithsonian federal funds: 22%
National Science Foundation: 4%
United States Department of Energy: 1%
Annenberg Foundation: 1%
Gifts and endowments: 1%
Other: 1%
CIC, could it actually stand for Climate Insane Clowns?
Willis,
I took the liberty of plagiarizing you question (without attrib.) and putting it to them again, myself.
I hope everyone here will do the same . . . .
I would be interested to know what specific research of Soon’s was funded by the American Petroleum Institute, Texaco Foundation, ExxonMobil Foundation, and the Koch brothers. When scientists receive grants from federal agencies, there are strict reporting requirements and any publications resulting from that would should expressly acknowledge the funding. Have any of Soon’s previous papers acknowledged these funding sources? If not, then it would seem unclear as to what was done “on his own time,” wouldn’t it?
Why aren’t you more interested in whether any of Dr Soon’s funding is demonstratively a corrupting influence? Why aren’t you curious that, over the last 20+ years of this repeated ‘funding = corruption’, NOT ONE prominent promoter of that talking point has ever offered any of us physical evidence (full context document scans, undercover video/audio transcripts, leaked emails, money-transfer receipts, etc.) proving skeptic scientists were paid to fabricate demonstratively false science papers, reports, assessments or viewpoints?
How much more obvious does it have to be, that without evidence that the money corrupted the scientists’ viewpoints, the insinuation about the funding is 100% worthless?
I didn’t use, or imply, the word “corruption,” but I would just like to see more full disclosure. Why is there so much secret funding of these researchers and institutes?
Barry – because of the slander and libel by such as Kert Davies.
@ur momisugly BarryJan 28, 2015 6:17 am: Who says the funding of the researchers is secret? Michaels & Singer disclosed their funding long ago. Heartland used to disclose their donors until the harassment of them over corruption insinuations suggested it was the catalyst for the unjustified harassment. Question is, why did you sidestep my two questions instead of answering them?
CRU was funded by BP and Shell. So we should toss out their “research” as well. Got it.
I’d be interested in knowing where your money, and Kert Davies money comes from Barry. Russian Oil? They are wasting their money IMO
I noticed whenever I mention a certain pair of brothers, my comment undergoes moderation. Interesting. In this case I was just quoting the cited article.
(Sigh)
There are a number of words that can trigger a closer look by the mods. Our host’s name is one of them.
I imagine the brothers you mention are on the list because of some of the nonsense said about them. If what you said wasn’t nonsense, it will likely show up. But sometimes whatever mechanism triggers a closer look just goes directly to, I think they call it, the spam filter. You called it to their attention. Give them a chance to check it out. The mods aren’t on the payroll of the brothers you mentioned. Give them a break.
I hate to get personal, but once I noticed this I cannot seem to shake it out of my head. Why do the more vocal Catastrophists all have funny shaped heads ? or grossly ugly mugs ?
I know it’s not scientific, and it’s probably not fair, but check it out. A definite correlation
Have you never seen a pic of Willis?
(ducks under desk)
OK, He’s no Brad Pitt, but at least you don’t think of him when you are opening a can of kidney beans
In case anyone wants to take me to task for my smartaleck remark, let me say that I had some fun poking my friend Willis in the ribs. Now, we’ve never met, and he might not share my sentiment, nor even want to, but knowing a man by his words and his works, Willis Eschenbach is my friend.
The scientific method deems that you shake it out of your head, and get back to causation.
One of the ‘fun parts’ of the whole funded by evil fossil fuels BS has been that when you look at it the IPCC , CRU and a whole host of green meanies you see how many of them got funded from BP , Shells etc .
But it would seem that has in Christianity, where via transformation water can be turned into wine, within AGW faith ‘dirty’ money can be made clear when it used in the name of ‘the cause’
For some without a “moral compass”, for lack of a better term, the end justifies the means.
Often CAGW is called a religion. I understand what is meant by that. “Belief without scientific proof.” OK. But a difference not to be forgotten is that a belief in God (for me, the God that raised Jesus Christ from the dead) recognizes a “higher power”. For the CAGW crowd, they want to be the “higher power”. What they would do with that power bodes ill for all of us.
(I’d say more but I recognize and respect that I’m in someone else’s “living room” and the views of the author of this post.)
They studied the ways of religion, feudalism and capitalism and now want to get a piece of the action, like a teenager fighting for their rights but ignoring their responsibilities.
Despite all their flaws, they lasted because they provided the community with something. You can’t progress without appreciating that.
If you need the threat of eternal damnation in order to have a “moral compass”, then perhaps you should re-think your beliefs. Doing the right thing for the sake of it should be enough.
Huh? Threat? The only “eternal” I have ahead of me is a promise. I endeavor to do what I do because I’m grateful.
But let’s not derail things. My main point was, “For some without a “moral compass”, for lack of a better term, the end justifies the means.”
If people were never told that stealing was wrong, they’d figure it out the first time somebody stole from them. Would they then steal in return?
“The end justifies the means” crowd would be among the first to steal.
Why would he wear that tie with that shirt and sports coat? Ugh.
Hmmm,, Green shirts. It has been sometime since I have read “Gulag Archipelago” But wasn’t that part of the attire of the commissars? Also NKVD? just an observation no comparison intended. (well just a little)
michael
Perhaps green shirts are the new brown?
@ur momisugly mandobob, that tie is awful (as is the shirt and coat) but if you look close the little laves on it theyresemble a familiar plant grown in South America and according to those that chew them aids them during working hrs at high elevations ( Maybe Kert thinks he is at “high elevations” working in DC).
C’mon guys, be nice. His mother may have dressed him and it is impolite to make disparaging comments about someone’s mother.
I find it so ridiculous that who paid for a study is even important. Of course, greenpeace is going to spend money to support their cause. Of course Heartland Institute, is going to spend money to support their cause. What is the problem here? The ONLY thing that matters is the arguments/studies/information/science that is being presented. Is it factual? Is it a sound argument? What are the counterpoints? I am a liberal who started down the path of believing in AGW until I started hearing statements that made NO sense to me- (Mostly- global warming is causing the global cooling) So I set out to read the arguments/science on BOTH sides to see which argument/science made most sense. Unfortunately for the liberals,I found that the argument/science being presented by conservatives made much more sense. The fact that I have YET to hear a scientific argument that counters anything Dr. Moon/NIPCC/James Steel/Bob Tisdale/Willis Essenbach/Christopher Monckton/Bob Carter has said, makes me believe them all the more. I have yet to see an IPCC report that debunks the NIPCC report – when I ask questions (that I REALLY want answers to) that pertain to an article such as the Globe posted- all I get in response is name calling and discrediting me for (incorrect) assumptions about my political beliefs…. When a greenpeace article stands up and presents logical scientific evidence that counters the skeptical argument, ( instead of being concerned about where the money came from,) then and only then will I listen. Who spent money on what is of no interest to me in researching the science.
I’ve read both the IPCC reports, and the NIPCC reports- I continuously read skepticalscience.com as well as wattsupwiththat.com . Whenever someone from MSM directs me to skepticalscience.com for explanations I laugh out loud! Despite “sounding” scientific, I find most of their articles missing the complete point of the argument they are supposed to be countering. Often their logic is circular (certainly their references are) … So often they quote a paper that quotes the IPCC to prove that the IPCC is correct…. Drives me crazy. On the other hand the blogs/article and information at wattsupwiththat.com is so much more persuasive. I’ve learned so much over the last year, thank you Anthony! 🙂
The only people that really make a stink about perceived (not obvious) conicts are alarmists. It is projection: the are often horribly conflicted themselves and assume everyone else must be as well.
In reality, the only conflicts that truly matter are those in which your actual livelihood ultimately depend upon. Serving on a committee that approves regulations that impact a product a company you own sells, for example, is a really obvious conflict. Being associated with an organization that disagrees with the so-called “mainstream view” of climate science is not. In fact, it is sort of expected (another duh).
Mark
So true. I am often accused of being right-wing because I haven’t seen any evidence for catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. It is illogical. I happen to be far to the political left of most here.
But logic is the biggest weakness of the alarmist crowd. Circular arguments are the norm. Followed by name-calling and smears.
Then censorship.
Strangely, the weakness of the case is known by those doing it. If you quote the IPCC as evidence against Dana at the Guardian – your comment will be deleted.
They know the truth and aren’t interested. In the long-term that isn’t viable. But too many people have got too much invested in the fear.
Was he dipping his finger in a bowl of water but dipped it in a bowl of glue by mistake, because the picture seems to show his finger stuck to his upper lip?
He was taking his finger out of his nose.
I find it amusing that nobody here actually looks at the elephant in the room: why the fossil fuel industry funds so many anti-climate science people.
The reason Big Oil, Coal and Gas funds campaigns against climate science is blindingly obvious: they profit from the very substance that causes it. Nobody here can deny that, surely? Whereas non-profits are – erm – non-profits, ie they don’t profit from a substance that causes global warming. Less of a vested interest, perhaps?
That Willie Soon has received no funding other than from the fossil fuel industry in the last ten years, and that he’s challenging the science of climate change must be a coincidence, I guess. It doesn’t appear the Smithsonian is paying him anything at all, except for what he gets in grants from the Big Guys.
I also find it amusing that given Davies is such a midget, WUWT has dedicated a whole post to him.
Non-Profits,eh? They PROFIT with MONEY (many billions of tax-free money), with power, with publicity, with access to the politicians, with exposure, with a moral sense of duty and honor from their peers, with a religious fulfillment and a sense of duty and sacrifice not seen since the Crusades you so viciously criticize. They profit – and, by the way, they “profit” much more – about 65% more! – BECAUSE they can claim a “non-profit” reward from a corrupt and Big Government friendly IRS.
Big Business needs to send a little more than 50% of their net income to Big Government as total taxes … Non-Profits? None. With NO accountability either.
Who does Big Oil fund? Please, be specific.
How much do they fund these people with each year?
How much tax-payer money is spent by Big Oil funding these people?
If Big Government is stealing the lives and business FROM “Big Oil” does “Big Oil” not have a right – A Duty even! – to fight back with their own money?
Big Government is deliberately out to destroy the energy businesses. Our President, our Secretary of State, our Department of Defense head have all said that Climate Change – used as propaganda and without cause by Big Government to justify destroying their industries – is the number one challenge, the most Dangerous Threat facing our country today. Is that not an explicit statement of war on the energy industries?
Now, if Big Government were destroying the entertainment industry or Big Universities or Big News inside ABCNNBCBS – instead of embracing its donations and its publicity and using its propaganda – would you be demonstrating full-voice against it? Instead, you accept the lies from Big Government because they fit your propaganda and your religious views of life. Not Liberty. Not Freedom. Not Individual Rights.
See “Big Government spent 92 billion funding government-paid “scientists” running government-built lab in government-funded institutions and universities to program government computer running government climate change programs to create a cliimate change industry of Big Business donars and Big Business cronies to spend taxpayer money on limate change. Which will not change the climate one bit. Further, Big Government spent these 92 billon dollars on the people claiming that climate change needs more money and more control!
So, YOU claim $25,000.00 buys enough “skeptics” that they can promote enough “skepticism” so well that the world’s temperature has not changed in past 18 years.
How many government paid “scientists” will gladly dance on the head of a pin to promote 1,300,000,000,000.00 per year in new government tax receipts?
How many “scientists” have been bought with your 92 billion dollars in climate change money?
RACookPE1978,
I’ve not invested time in to the argument that FF industry funds this or that. I have to assume that these are quite intelligent and forward looking folks running these huge public companies with stockholders to whom they report. And folks that do this funding would in fact NOT being doing their jobs should they not plan for any and all eventualities. These include the need for profitable alternative energy sources and the “potential” of climate change related business planning. As we know, the climate changes. http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-policy-principles/overview
So when I see anyone “accuse” FF of funding either/both sides of the coin methinks: That’s good business. The “accusation” is only intended to raise blood pressure.
I wish “Big Oil” would throw some money at the postal service. Then maybe my check wouldn’t keep getting lost in the mail! 😎
Patsi,
First, take the log out of your own eye, before declaring a speck in our eyes.
Tell us about funding for the various Green groups. How about $25 million paid to Greenpeace by a nat’l gas player in order to demonize coal? What about certain Russian funding paid to various US and int’l green groups in order to demonize shale gas recovery methods? What about IPCC funding by a consortium of financial institutions (read: private banks)?
You are either ignorant of green funding, or you are making hypocritical statements.
I’d love to see evidence of the Russian funding paid to various US and international green groups to demonize shale. LOVE to. Apart from a former NATO guy’s accusations, show me the paper trail on that one.
But in reply to RACook, and to repeat my earlier sentiment: when someone with real skin in the game (ie where oil, coal, gas company products cause global warming) starts funding science saying it’s not real, they have a MOTIVE. Just as nobody here (well, maybe not nobody, given where I am) would trust a tobacco-industry-funded piece of science challenging smoking/health connections, we should all be a little bit circumspect when looking at science funded by those who are causing the problem.
Apart from some spurious notion that scientists are “in it for the money” (all those mansions?), I can’t see any more obvious examples of skin in the science game as this funding by big oil, coal and gas. Sure, Willie Soon isn’t rich, and hasn’t gotten huge sums, but it’s the ONLY MONEY HE GETS.
Patsi.
EVERY PENNY of the climate change scientists government-paid budget is 100% paid-for BY the Big Government that IS rewarding them (Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Holdren, etc.)and everybody else in that 97% of government-paid scientists” who support more government-funding of climate “science”
A fossil fuel company at least provides something for the money they earn, the money they spend, and the money they pay. All of their profits they chose voluntary to pay off climate groups or to do real research is voluntarily spent.
EVERY penny that Big Government “scientists” earn, EVERY penny that Big Government “scientists” spend on t heir admin, their travel, their computers, their labs, their vacations, their holidays, their travel assistants and their books and their publications and their billion-dollar exotic climate control junkets is TAKEN from the taxpayers and GIVEN to the Big Government “scientists” BY Big Government bureaucrats who are PAID salaries and power and influence BECAUSE they are supporting Big Government climate interests.
Corrupted by money? Big Government. Corrupting with money? Big Government.
trying to earn money because people want to spend their money to live better? Fossil Fuel.
Who is corrupt? A man who earned $25,000.00 once? Of an agency who depends on 92 billion GIVEN it by people who need to use that 1.3 trillion they don’t have yet because of private independent “skeptics” are right.
Patsi, Governments have motive; they want to get re-elected. The path to re-election is to keep the voters scared.
You want proof that the Russians are funding green groups to demonize shale, but do not ask for proof of scientists being paid to demonize ‘global warming’.
They used to call it hypocrisy.
The elephant is that Willie Soon became a sceptic before he received any funding from Big Oil or Coal. He became sceptical when the only outcome was grief from the establishment. According to David Suzuki
“According to Greenpeace, every grant Dr. Soon has received since 2002 has been from oil or coal interests”.
He was Scientific Advisor for Greening Earth Society (1997-2001) http://greeningearthsociety.org/Global-Warming
He appears to be lukewarm rather a ‘denier of the science’. His first sceptical paper from 1996 has
” A review of the literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th century have produced no deleterious effects upon global climate or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates as inferred from numerous laboratory and field experiments. There is no clear evidence, nor unique attribution, of the global effects of anthropogenic CO2 on climate. Meaningful integrated assessments of the environmental impacts of anthropogenic CO2 are not yet possible because model estimates of global and regional climate changes on interannual, decadal and centennial time scales remain highly uncertain.” http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v13/n2/p149-164/
So his opinion wasn’t tainted by money from oil or coal. Now stick to the arguments.
Patsi,
Like Will Rogers, I only know what I read in the papers (internet sources.) Here’s one interesting article about Russian funding, tear it apart as you may:http://freebeacon.com/issues/foreign-firm-funding-u-s-green-groups-tied-to-state-owned-russian-oil-company/
I notice that you didn’t have anything to say about references to Greenpeace or IPCC funding…
In re your other remarks: it is a first order mistake to assume/claim that massive “green research” funding from government or any private source has an altruistic agenda. Nice try on your “mansions” strawman, but a lot of those whom you call (climate) scientists, would have zero funding (just like you claim for Willie Soon,) were it not for funding to support the green agenda.
[Rather “(unlike what you claim for Willie Soon)”? .mod]
Only if you do not understand basic economic theory. And you also fail to notice that Bug Oil spends more on alarmist science than anything (because they stand to profit more from it).
Thus is definitely one of the stupidest, and easiest to disprove, arguments you folks make. Freaking learn to use google.
Mark
Patsi says:
I’d love to see evidence…
Ooh. Can I play that game, too?
Patsi says …the fossil fuel industry funds so many anti-climate science people.
What’s your evidence? Names, please. Funding amounts. And in what year(s)?
What specific man-made global warming research was funded by the American Petroleum Institute? Or by Texaco Foundation? Or by the Exxon-Mobil Foundation? Or by the Koch Bros? Anything you can cite, I can cite much bigger amounts, paid to Michael Mann alone. And not by government agencies, unless you think the WWF is a government agency. Go ahead, call my bluff — if you can.
What other skeptics were funded — by name, amount and year? I’d love to see your evidence… “Patsi”.
Watch the pea under the shell, folks. Because whatever “Patsi” wants to discuss has nothing to do with science. It’as just more ad hominem misdirection. The alarmist cult doesn’t have anything else, do they?
Nope. The planet is doing the same as always. Nothing unusual or unprecedented is happening. “Patsi” is emitting propaganda and nonsense.
So please, “Patsi”, stick to verifiable facts for once, and quit deflecting.
K?Thxbye.
Hey Patsi exciting news for you. I found out who is getting money from big oil! And we’ve got evidence! Shell and BP have been funding these guys. They must be frauds pushing for big oil to make a profit. Some crowd called ‘CRU’. Go after them!
patsi,
You and your pals are missing the mama elephant because you’re so taken with the baby elephant.
Yes, Big,Bad O,C,G are giving money away and it is distressing.
They received that money from me and a bunch of others because we wanted them to dig up O,C & G and deliver it to us. Every dollar they waste on appeasement of their detractors gets added to our bill and we wind up having to burn more OCG to subsidize their green-washing.
I am surprised to discover that you and your pals are not members of our august company and am curious to hear how you contrive to get around the country and heat your homes without benefit of O,C & G.
It’s puzzling that you have, in your perceptions, reversed the rôles of the players in this drama.
We are paying them; they’re working for us. Even Volvo drivers are in on it.
Patsi January 27, 2015 at 3:25 pm
I find it amusing that you don’t realize that Big Oil gives much more money to pro-AGW organizations than to anti-AGW organizations.
I also find it amusing that in your world scientists are so venal that they would slant their results based on the source of their funding.
The climate science department at Stanford University, former home of the former Steven Schneider, is one of the most powerful and vocal pro-AGW organizations I can think of. Here’s how it is funded:
One hundred megabucks is much, much more than Exxon has given to all skeptical organizations combined.
Do you find that amusing? Is that the “elephant in the room”? Is it a reason to consider the work of all Stanford climate scientists tainted beyond redemption?
In fact, my amused anonymouse, whoever funds someone is immaterial. The only question worth asking is, are their claims true? It doesn’t matter if they are funded by God or by Beelzebub, the real issue is, are their claims true or not?
And that is the true elephant in the room—the blatant attempt by folks such as yourself to distract people from the science by an attack on the funding sources.
w.
Leave him alone Willis,he’s too easy
Thanks, JB, but I write for the lurkers …
w.
Willis, The Boston Globe is a useless liberal rag who cater to the cronies. You should have seen them try to cover up First Wind’s association to organized crime.
They are silent about the failure of Cape Wind, and I will let you know that various renewable/environmental concerns are ‘under a very large microscope’ for various financial and other serious problems… There will be nothing the Boston Globe can do about that. Will let all know in Tip’s and Notes when TSHTF.
Eh.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/climateinvestigations.org
Global rank: 5,072,759 (The rank declined 2,023,549 positions versus the previous 3 months)
If Kert Davies was honest, he would say that he thinks that double standards are ok, because the economic model we use is tipped towards a free market, therefore it is ok to criticise funding from the free market if it supports the continuation of the free market.
In his view, government needs all the help it can get, including double standards. This is part of the concept of ‘equality’, or ‘redistribution of wealth’ from the free market. Double standards are required in order to address the imbalance.
I don’t agree with this warped logic, I just think that is what he thinks.
thingadonta says:
If Kert Davies was honest…
As the Spartans said to Philip:
“If.”
dbstealey congratulations I can’t off the top of my head place the dialogue. I think you are referring to Philip of Macedonia father of Alexander the Great, but the time and occasion escape me. Now I have some reading to do.
I am the smartest man in the world..
until I find someone who knows more then me..
Then I learn what that person knows…
Now I am the smartest man in the world again! (excluding spelling!)
michael
Hi Mike,
Maybe not the perfect analogy, but glad to see someone got it.
For those who [like me] would normally be too lazy to look it up, when Philip of Macedon told Sparta that if he won the war against them he intended to lay waste to their land, rape and pillage, etc., the Spartan embassy answered him with a famous one word reply: “If.”
Same-same here: if Kert Davies was honest. But I don’t think he is.
When activists use the smear by association trick, the best remedy is to remind them that they are accusing someone of scientific fraud.
I shut down a Greenpeace activist during a radio debate using this method.