Comments | boiling_frog: Really, check this out

peristaltor in boiling_frog

Really, check this out

Nov 19, 2006 14:34

You Canadians in the group already know it, but for the benefit of the Yanks in the crowd the CBC has a better investigative journalism outfit on TV than anything (outside of PBS's Frontline) in the US: the fifth estateTheir latest story directly involves this group. They expose those scientists who cast doubt on the global warming debate through ( Read more... )

Comments 41

CBC show should be viewed with skepticism anonymous November 20 2006, 00:55:13 UTC

The CBC doctored the list of signatories on the open letter to PM Harper - Professor Singer was actually down around #50, while they show him as the third. The also show the letter as being on the front page of the FP when in fact it was the second to last page in the comment section - see http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605. Note also the incorrect info on the program about all those other than the 19 Canadians being Americans. Many other mistakes as well but that alone should make you question how much of the show was correct.

Tom Harris
www.nrsp.com

Re: CBC show should be viewed with skepticism beachofdreams November 20 2006, 03:50:46 UTC

I only watched the beginning of the program, but I don't need TV show to tell me about well-funded scientists in order to understand that global warming is a real phenomena and that it is anthropogenic in nature. At least, of course, the warming that has occured in the last 50 years ( ... )

Re: CBC show should be viewed with skepticism beachofdreams November 20 2006, 06:46:43 UTC

Moreover I think that the supposed problems with the CBC account are more superfluous than they are meaningful. The point is that the letter was sent with Singer as a signatory, etc.

Re: CBC show should be viewed with skepticism beepbeep November 20 2006, 07:06:14 UTC

I would really like to understand more of the science involved and to learn as much as I can about it.

As for the market, I wish were a total panacea, but there are so many distortions to it that even if it were a magic bullet it would be a very skewed one.

Thread 16

re: doctoring anonymous November 20 2006, 14:11:07 UTC

Search here under Harris

http://www.desmogblog.com/

Re: doctoring anonymous November 21 2006, 00:22:42 UTC

hmm; people do not seem to be paying atention here. It is not what I say that counts but what the experts say - do you dismiss all 61 of the ones that signed the open letter to Harper? Come on. This debate is alive and well as can be expected in such a complex field. Any statements that the science is settled is pure propaganda. Scientists know this which is why you almost never see them making the extremist statements as the politicos (which includes most enviro groups).

Tom

Re: doctoring beachofdreams November 21 2006, 00:40:11 UTC

http://www.cfcas.org/LettertoPM19apr06e.pdf

-I don't want to play a game with numbers, as it is not neccessarily conclusive, but this letter is signed by 90 or so scientists, written to Harper, and says something very different from the letter you posted.

Disagreement can be expected in any scientific field, but that does not preclude the soundness of certain arguments that are put forth. An argument can be made to the IPCC that "global warming is not happening (or whatever conclusion) because of X and Y", but this does not establish a serious debate. The doubt or counter-argument raised must be a reasonable and applicable (i.e. not irrelevant). But many of the arguments I have heard againt the anthropogenic theory are just not that.

Re: doctoring beachofdreams November 21 2006, 01:26:57 UTC

"Any statements that the science is settled is pure propaganda. Scientists know this which is why you almost never see them making the extremist statements as the politicos"

I agree that some organizations use so called "extremist language". However, a scientist's use of more neutral (would NRSP call it "rational"?) language, such as the kind that Dr. Schmidt of the NOAA or any of his affiliates use, does not neccessarily imply that they think that there is a debate going on.

Thread 15

another urban legend that needs highlighting tom_harris February 11 2007, 03:21:24 UTC

Another urban legend that needs clearing up is the ‘fact’ that scientists who are skeptical of climate change are in the pocket of big oil. In reality, ZERO % of the funding in Canada (and practically none anywhere else) that goes to research into the causes of global climate change comes from industry of any kind - it is all from the taxpayer. So, should such research be hidden from the people that pay for it? DeSmogBlog apparently thinks so.

I told one of the hosts this on the radio about the oil funded scientists myth but I’m not sure he was convinced - click here to listen to our short discussion - see http://www.nrsp.com/NRSP-Media/Audio_Wave/CFRA-Nov14-06.wav .
Tom Harris
www.nrsp.com

Re: another urban legend that needs highlighting peristaltor February 11 2007, 23:01:47 UTC

I'll grant that I don't know for sure which "experts" are today funded by whom. I do know, from The Heat Is On, that some were definitely hired by those in the carbon industries. I also don't follow DeSmogBlog with any frequency. The last time I visited the site was on the tip that an anonymous respondent posted in a reply.

Since you have returned to the discussion, could you shed light on your motivations for questioning the overwhelming body of evidence presented by groups such as the IPCC? I am genuinely curious.

In return, I would be happy to outline my motivations in continuing to pursue every shred of evidence presented in this debate -- pro or con.

Re: another urban legend that needs highlighting tom_harris February 12 2007, 04:16:11 UTC

You say, "I do know, from The Heat Is On [Ross Gelbspan], that some were definitely hired by those in the carbon industries ( ... )

Re: another urban legend that needs highlighting peristaltor February 13 2007, 00:25:55 UTC

I have asked many scientists about funding sources and I do not know of a simgle one who has had his/her research into the causes of global climate change funded by "carbon industries" as you put it. Can you name one?

Perhaps you don't talk to the funded scientists. They are, by their own admission, out there.

From Jeremy Leggett's The Carbon War:

Gelbspan's research had brought to light some fascinating material on the relationships between the carbon club and their scientific hit men. All the main dissidents had testified under oath at a Minnesota hearing in 1995 about the effects of burning coal. In the course of this (testimony), they had each admitted to taking consultancies with oil and coal interests amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

-- Leggett, The Carbon War, Routledge, 2001, p. 262 (emphasis mine).
Also, I realize that the "vast majority of climate scientists" have nothing to do with the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The IPCC is not so awash in funds that they can hire every ( ... )

Thread 10