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
Tom Harris
www.nrsp.com
Reply
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
Search here under Harris
http://www.desmogblog.com/
Reply
Tom
Reply
-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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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
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.
Reply
Reply
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 ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment