Steve
Have you read the IPCC reports?
Brian
Steve Gregory wrote:
> 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.
>
|
