Ad features 100 scientists willing to stoke the climate crisis

Tue, 2009-03-31 13:02Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Ad features 100 scientists willing to stoke the climate crisis



We know, for example, that the API has been conspiring since the late 1990s, to sow doubt and confusion about climate science. And the signatories to this new ad - these "100 scientists" - also include a large group that has added handsomely to their livelihood in the last 10 years by taking money from think tanks and coal companies to deny climate change.

Think of people on the George Monbiot list, and think especially of someone like Patrick Michaels, a denier for hire who has long ago distinguished himself as the kind of researcher who the coal industry sponsors because of his willingness "to stand up against the alarmists and bring balance to the discussion." (Of course, at no point does Michaels do this by actually pursuing climate researchl; rather, he appears to earn his coal money by signing Cato Institute ads).

It's interesting that some of the worst deniers for hire (stand up Dr. S. Fred Singer), have fallen off this new list. And it's more interesting that this list includes a couple of new names - signatories who have not appeared previously on lists of "scientists" willing to speak publicly on climate change - their area of expertise notwithstanding.


This is the same old stuff - a list of scientists of questionable or unrelated climate credentials, working for an oil-backed think tank to confuse people on the issue of climate change. It's only shocking that they keep getting attention. Of course, when you have this kind of money to throw at a problem, impact is easy. Intelligent policy, apparently, is harder.

This month we're giving away FREE copies Keith Farnish's new book Times Up: an uncivilized solution to a global crisis.



Quick question here. Who gets more funding- Climate Alarmists, or Climate Realists?


climate scientists, who are the real climate realists.

Phlogiston Troll.


Since 2000, UMCES has received $65,849,037 in federal grant money. univ. of maryland environmental sciences...i wonder if they said there was no causal relationship b/w plant food and pollution they would continue to get funding... 65M, one school, vs. how much?

Maybe if the Cato Institute starts to actually do some research, instead of plonking the money into noise campaigns, then you'll have a point.

But I'm sure you'll ignore that fact, and try to change the topic.

-- bi




it was a rhetorical question . let me spell it out for you  like i have to for "bi". now by saying spell it out i dont mean literally spell the words in case you didnt get that....MY point was that they will continue to find a causal relationship regardless of facts or else they will not continue to receive funding. hope that was clear enough.

"Rhetorical question?"

That's wingnut-speak for 'I'll question authority, but when I get answers to my questions, I'll ignore them and supply my own answers! Nyah nyah nyah!'

How about this:



Hope that was clear enough.

-- bi


I assure you, I take nothing you write, or 'spell out', seriously.

Okay, mascereye, phlogiston, in case you really don't understand (and are 2 different people), you are parroting a denier argument about 'research funds go only to global warming studies and the scientists will lose all their funding if they don't lie.'


So guess what they find? The ice is melting. 


Rich, I'm thinking a detailed expose of this 'more funds for proving global warming' is warranted.


Real researchers study what the data is telling them. If you don't think the ice is melting go to an Alaskan village of native peoples, and ask them.

The question should be who has more money to offer? Coal and oil companies fueling climate change deniers, or Goverments funding real climate change reaserch?

Worrying times for us all.



Susan Crockford is one of the "polar bears have no problem with global warming which isn't happening anyway and BTW the arctic sea ice isn't melting" people.

This silly petition doesn't deserve a serious response. So here's my reply to it:

With all due respect, Mr. President, if it does not go KA-BOOM!, then you are doing it wrong. THE ORGONE PETITION. PROTECTING AMERICA. SIGNED BY TOP NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS AND PSYCHIC ENERGY EXPERTS.

-- bi



The claim that "there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events" is based on a 2005 article citing the 2001 IPCC assesment. Quite out of date.

AS I keep reminding people, be really careful in assigning primary funding of CATO, etc just to fossil fuel companies.  Look carefully  at Scaife, Koch, Olin, etc ... i.e., the  big family foundations.  Of course, the tobacco companies are out there also.


GingerLadySlipper, by your reference to GRACE data, I assume you mean Luthcke et. Al. (2006)? However Johannessen et al. (2005), working with satellite-altimeter data from Greenland, reported the ice sheet was growing at a mean growth rate of 5.4 ± 0.2 cm/year. Cazenave. (2006) goes on to say that "(Greenland) ice mass varies widely from year to year," and the (different) analyses "do not overlap exactly in time, so different trend estimates are to be expected”.


What we do know though is that between 1920 and 1930, when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rose by 3 to 4 ppm, Chylek, et. Al (2004) report that "(Greenland) average annual temperature rose between 2 and 4°C in less than ten years."












I guess that's why he calls himself "Phlogiston".

-- bi


On your specific distraction: Greenland's response to warming is increasing height inland due to more rain at the edges. See Fettweis for a detailed explanation:


He explains:

                    "Consequences of a warmer climate
thickening inland, due to increased solid precipitation, and a
thinning at the GrIS periphery, due to a combination of an
increasing surface melt and a probably increased iceberg dis-
charge into the ocean along the coasts."
I'm putting you in for First Prize in the "Fred Singer Quote Mines of the Week"!


One strange aspect of the peitition is that it is full of retirees. It makes one suspect that even with padding they could not find enough names to fill it.



I think that we'll see very little change on this front until we see a drastic economic recovery, and I'm doubting that people are going to feel better about things in the near future enough to make so-called "secondary issues" a priority again.

