Hi Joe,
I hear what you're saying, but did you read what Mr. Idso states in one
of the position papers under the "About Us" tab on the page? He
addresses the funding they got from ExxonMobil rather eloquently I
think...
Another place on their web page that is interesting is under the
"Education" tab, and then look at "Experiments" to see that carbon
dioxide is not the terrible, evil, gas that everyone is condemning
nowadays.
I'm not yet ready to dismiss the information that is on the CO2Science
web page just because they got a little bit of funding from ExxonMobile.
Steve
What Motivates the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
"Where do you get your funding?" This is a common inquiry we frequently
receive. Our typical response is that we never discuss our funding. Why?
Because we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature operates
should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of
support for the person or organization that produces them.
Unfortunately, we know that this view is contrary to what often occurs
in today's world, where the souls of many are bought and sold daily -
some for a proverbial king's ransom and others for but a pauper's penny
- to promulgate ideas to which they have not the slightest personal
allegiance. I want to state once and for all, therefore, that we at the
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change do not
participate in such commerce, while acknowledging there are likely many
scientists on the opposite side of the climate change debate that are
equally true to themselves in this regard.
But why should you believe me? Lying and fabrication are equally rampant
throughout today's world, making almost anyone's declaration, however
adamantly and eloquently delivered, more suspect than believable; and
maybe that's what I'm doing here - lying to you.
Clearly, one should not believe what we at CO2 Science or anyone else
says about carbon dioxide and global change without carefully examining
the reasoning behind, and the evidence for, our and their declarations,
which makes questions about funding rather moot. It is self-evident, for
example, that one need not know from whence a person's or organization's
funding comes in order to evaluate the reasonableness of what they say,
if - and this is a very important qualification - one carefully studies
the writings of people on both sides of the issue.
Nevertheless, questions about funding persist, and they are clearly of
great interest to many people, as evidenced by the spate of publicity
aroused by the 4 Sep 2006 letter of Bob Ward (Senior Manager for Policy
Communication of the UK's Royal Society) to Nick Thomas (Esso UK
Limited's Director of Corporate Affairs), as well his criticism of us in
his BBC Today Programe interview of 21 Sep 2006 with Sarah Montague,
where he pointedly described our Center as being one of the
organizations funded by ExxonMobil that "misrepresent the science of
climate change."
That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true; and that may be why
ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past; they
probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But what we
had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes not,
from them or any other organization or person. Rather, it was and is
derived from our individual scrutinizing of the pertinent scientific
literature and our analyses of what we find there, which we have been
doing and subsequently writing about on our website on a weekly basis
without a single break since 15 Jul 2000, and twice-monthly before that
since 15 Sep 1998 ... and no one could pay my sons and me enough money
to do that.
So what do we generally find in this never-ending endeavor? We find
enough good material to produce weekly reviews of five different
peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not follow the
multiple doom-and-gloom storylines of the IPCC. In addition, we often
review articles that do follow the IPCC's lead; and in these cases we
take issue with them for what we feel are valid defensible reasons. Why
do we do this? We do it because we feel that many people on the other
side of the debate - but by no means all or even the majority of them -
are the ones that "misrepresent the science of climate change."
Just as beauty resides in the eye of the beholder, however, so too does
the misrepresentation of climate change science live there; and with
people on both sides of the debate often saying the same negative things
about those on the other side, it behooves the rational person seeking
to know the truth to carefully evaluate the things each side says about
more substantial matters. Are they based on real-world data? Do the
analyses employed seem appropriate? Do the researchers rely more on data
and logic to make their points, or do they rely more on appeals to
authority and claims of consensus? Funding also enters the picture; but
one must determine if it is given to influence how scientists interpret
their findings or to encourage them to maintain their intellectual
integrity and report only what they believe to be the truth.
In this regard, as I mentioned earlier, there are many scientists on
both sides of the climate change debate who receive funds from people
that admire their work and who continue to maintain their intellectual
and moral integrity. Likewise, there are probably some on both sides of
the controversy who do otherwise. So how does one differentiate between
them?
Clearly, each researcher's case is unique. In my case, I feel that a
significant indication of what motivates me to do what I do can be
gleaned from my publication record, which demonstrates that I studied
and wrote about many of the topics we currently address on our website a
full quarter-century ago in a host of different peer-reviewed scientific
journals - as well as in a couple of books (Idso, 1982, 1989) that I
self-published and for which I personally paid the publication costs -
all of which happened well before I, or probably anyone else, had ever
even contemplated doing what we now do and actually receiving funds to
sustain the effort. What is more, many of these things occurred well
before there was any significant controversy over the climate change
issue, which largely began with the publication of one of my early
contributions to the topic (Idso, 1980). Hence, it should be readily
evident that my views about the potential impacts of the ongoing rise in
the air's CO2 concentration from that time until now have never been
influenced in even the slightest degree by anything other than what has
appeared in the scientific literature. And my sons are in their father's
image.
So, it is indeed true that we have our point of view, just as the other
side of the debate has its point of view; and those views are radically
different from of each other. Please study carefully, therefore, the
materials that each side produces and decide for yourself which seems to
be the more correct, based upon real-world data and logical reasoning;
but be very careful about appeals to authority, claims of consensus, and
contentions of funding leading to misrepresentation of climate-change
science. Although there likely is some of the latter occurring on both
sides of the debate, the mere existence of funding, whether from private
or public sources, does not, in and of itself, prove malfeasance on the
part of the funds' recipients.
Sherwood B. Idso, President
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
-----Original Message-----
From: EnviroNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joe Fjelstad
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 1:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [EN] Freedom, not climate, is at risk
Thanks Steve,
Like you I don't know where the truth is but I like to try and learn
where the sources are coming from as arguments on both sides have
plausible elements to them.
When I did a search of they authors (noting that they had the same
unusual last name) I found that they were father and son and in fact it
appears that the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change is top loaded with family members. Chairman, President, Vice
President and Operations manager are all related.
It also appears that they may have a financial stake in game.
_http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3
645&me
thod=full_
(http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3
645&method=full)
It does not make their comments or position untrue but it casts them in
a slightly different light. Too bad they could not have found a less
nepotistic
appearing organization to rebut Hansen.
Thanks again,
Joe
************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.
|
