Yes... 

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 3:35 AM
To: Environmental Issues; Steve Gregory
Subject: Re: [EN] Freedom, not climate, is at risk

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.
>