At least we can all discuss this, have different opinions, and even call
each other names without rioting and beheadings and threats of death
resulting. Hail to civilized countries!!
John Lee
At 09:12 PM 9/21/06 -0400, Wirt Atmar wrote:
>Bruce writes:
>
> > From Scientific American:
> > Known variations in the sun's total energy output cannot explain
> > recent global warming, say researchers who have reviewed the
> > existing evidence. The judgment casts doubt on the claims of
> > some global warming skeptics who have argued that long-term
> > changes in solar output, or luminosity, might be driving the
> > current climate pattern.
> > http://cl.exct.net/?ffcb10-fe5a1c79756c047f7112-fdf21573746702797613787c-
> > ff3310707762
>
>There are two groups who you can trust *not* to provide accurate science, the
>fundamentalists of the religious right and the funders of the various
>anti-regulation institutes (the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise
>Institute,
>the Competitive Enterprise Institute, etc.). Unfortunately they are now the
>mainstays of the Republican Party.
>
>The fundamentalists define their "science" so as to allow it to agree with
>their preconceived notions. If they had not made themselves so politically
>powerful, they would simply be ignored.
>
>On the other hand, although the funders of the various anti-regulation
>institutes have nothing in common philosophically with these people, other
>than they
>both work to do everything they can to deceive people whose level of
>experience, education or expertise doesn't rise to the necessary level of
>critical
>questioning, which unfortunately in a scientifically illiterate population is
>almost everyone.
>
>The standard tactic of these groups is to find and fund marginal scientists
>in order to produce a significant array of misleading -- or outrightly
>incorrect -- reports and then point to the scientific "controversy" that
>exists about
>the subject.
>
>This was the tactic that was used during the entirety of the
>cigarettes-cause-cancer "controversy," even though by the time that the
>CEOs of the various
>tobacco companies each sat in a line in front of Congress and swore
>one-by-one
>that cigarettes did not cause cancer, although a mountain of evidence to
>contrary had been accumulated over the previous 40 years.
>
>While these people eventually came to be completely discredited, the same
>approach is being used again now by the energy suppliers in regard to carbon
>emissions and global warming, and this is the source of the material that
>Mark
>Wonsil is prone to post. It essentially has no merit.
>
>Within the last several weeks, the presidents of both the American and
>British Associations for the Advancement of Science, which are independent
>organizations, have written letters in behalf of their memberships stating
>that the
>debate over global warming is over. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are -- and
>will -- radically change the near-term environment of the planet.
>
>Earlier this month, the Royal Society, the oldest and perhaps most
>prestigious scientific society in the world, sent a letter to Exxon-Mobil,
>saying in
>effect, "cut the crap." I've included below a NY Times story outlining the
>letter. Exxon, of course, denies all connection with the organizations
>that they
>have been funding:
>
>=======================================
>
>September 21, 2006
>British Science Group Says Exxon Misrepresents Climate Issues
>By HEATHER TIMMONS
>
>LONDON, Sept. 20 — A British scientific group, the Royal Society, coontends
>that Exxon Mobil is spreading “inaccurate and misleading” information
>about
>climate change and is financing groups that misinform the public on the
>issue.
>
>The Royal Society, a 1,400-member organization that dates back to the
>1600’s
>and has counted Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein as members, asked Exxon
>Mobil
>in a letter this month to stop financing these groups and to change its
>public reports to reflect more accurately the opinions of scientists on
>the issue.
>
>There is a “false sense somehow that there is a two-sided debate going
>on in
>the scientific community” about the origins of climate change, said Bob
>Ward,
>the senior manager for policy communication at the Royal Society.
>
>The reality is that “thousands and thousands” of scientists around the
>world
>agree that climate change is linked to greenhouse gases, he said, with “one
>or two professional contrarians” who disagree.
>
>Dozens of lobbying groups, some of them receiving financing from Exxon Mobil,
>are relying on these contrarians as experts, Mr. Ward said. Meanwhile, he
>said, Exxon Mobil writes in documents it distributes to the public that it is
>difficult to determine the extent to which climate change can be
>attributed to
>human actions, a view that, he said, the vast majority of scientists do not
>share.
>
>In a statement, Exxon Mobil said the Royal Society had “inaccurately and
>unfairly described our company.” It added: “We know that carbon
>emissions are one
>of the factors that contribute to climate change — we don’t debate or
>dispute this.”
>
>Exxon Mobil said it was taking steps to minimize emissions of carbon dioxide
>and other greenhouse gases from its operations.
>
>In a letter sent to Exxon Mobil this month, the Royal Society said it was
>“very difficult to reconcile the misrepresentations of climate change
>science in
>these documents with Exxon Mobil’s claims to be an industry leader.”
>
>The letter states that Exxon Mobil pledged in July, after a meeting with the
>society, to stop financing organizations that spread information the society
>considers misleading, and it asks for proof that the financing has stopped.
>
>In 2005, Exxon Mobil sent $2.9 million to 39 groups active in the United
>States that spread misleading information about climate change, Mr. Ward
>said,
>including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the International Policy
>Network
>and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
>
>Exxon Mobil said in its statement that it gave financial support to
>organizations that “research significant policy issues and promote
>informed discussion
>on issues of direct relevance to the company.” These organizations do not
>speak on the company’s behalf, nor does it control their views and
>messages, Exxon
>Mobil said.
>
>========================================
>
>Wirt Atmar
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
