Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Unless you can refutte the facts about the authors of your source, your complaint really doesn't mean much. Also, since when is sourcewatch a biased source?

T
K
O

Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate, as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter, they recently referred to corporate PR as a propaganda industry, misleading citizens and manipulating minds in the service of special interests. Ironically, Rampton and Stauber have elected to dip into the deep pockets of multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest agendas of their own.

Their books Mad Cow U.S.A. and Toxic Sludge Is Good for You! were produced and promoted using grant monies from the Foundation for Deep Ecology ($25,000) and the Education Foundation of America ($20,000), among others. Along with the more recent Trust Us: We're Experts, these books are scare-mongering tales about a corporate culture out of control, and each implies that the public needs rescuing. Guess who the heroes in this fantasy are?

If you can't attack the science, attack the people.

Good job mini.. It seems you are proving your case.

Quote:

FACTSHEET: Robert C. Balling Jr.
DETAILS
Director, Office of Climatology and Associate professor of Geography, Arizona State University
NCPPR scientific expert on global warming. (1996)

Dr. Balling wrote the "Heated Debate," published by the Pacific Research Institute and "True State of the Planet," published by CEI. He co-wrote "The Satanic Gases" with Patrick J. Michaels, published by the Cato Institute. Balling signed the Leipzig Declaration in 1995.

According to Harper's, Balling has recieved more than $200,000 from coal and oil interests over the past six years. Specific incidences include significant levels of funding since 1989 from the Kuwaiti government, foreign coal and mining corporations and Cyprus Minerals Company (totalling $72,554). (Kuwait has opposed the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The Kuwaiti government paid for a release of Balling's "A Heated Debate" in the Middle East, a project originally funded by the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. The Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science granted Balling $48,993 and the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research granted him an undisclosed amount. British Coal Corporation gave him a total of $103,544 and the German Coal Mining Association gave him $81,780 in two separate grants. (Ozone Action, NCPPR directory)

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=5

Quote:

Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC. [1]

His views have led to his enthusiastic adoption by various members of the free-market Atlas Economic Research Foundation network. He writes regularly for the Cato Institute, Tech Central Station and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

His writings find him regularly in the company of other prominent climate change sceptics, including Sallie L. Baliunas, and S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_C._Balling

Quote:

Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels."[3]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_J._Michaels

Quote:

Michaels is the Chief Editor for the "World Climate Review," a newsletter on global warming funded by the Western Fuels Association. Dr. Michaels has acknowledged that 20% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources: (http://www.mtn.org/~nescncl/complaints/determinations/det_118.html) Known funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association, $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company, an early supporter of People for the West, a "wise use" group. He received $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association, above and beyond the undisclosed amount he is paid for the World Climate Report/Review. According to Harper's magazine, Michaels has recieved over $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests. Michaels wrote "Sound and Fury" and "The Satanic Gases" which were published by Cato Institute. Dr. Michaels signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. In July of 2006, it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association "contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels." (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2242565&page=1) ALEC advisor. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11310 and http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3558

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4

parados wrote:

If you can't attack the science, attack the people.

Good job mini.. It seems you are proving your case.

Science ? Which science, this one ?


But you're right. I shouldn't adopt the bad behavior of GW alarmists.

Center for Consumer Freedom as described in wikipedia.

So, after I already indicated the source and the bias of which they are accused, you felt it necessary to post a half page of defamatory material from more biased sources that those that are being rebutted?

Anyhow, thanks for the oh so warm welcome.

I am an anti-gw. Change happens.

I am an anti-gw. Change happens.

Start with these facts. Can you refutte any of them?

Even if the source is pure LEFT, the facts speak for themself correct? If you are being paid by people whose intrest it is to disprove GW or climate change, where do your intrests fall? Dubious at best, I say. Better to trust those scientists with public funding.

Quote:

So, after I already indicated the source and the bias of which they are accused, you felt it necessary to post a half page of defamatory material from more biased sources that those that are being rebutted?

It is not a case of bias vs bias a la Jim likes Chevy and Bob likes Ford.

That's the same mischaracterization used if you describe tobacco execs (with all their reams of 'scientific' data on the health benefits of smoking and multi-million dollar public relations front groups) as merely 'biased' one way while doctors and government med people and activists and lung cancer patients are biased another way.

Quote:

Anyhow, thanks for the oh so warm welcome.

Perhaps not warm, but sincere. I confess part of this rests on a wish that you are around come november. I respect your passion and activism.

Diest TKO wrote:

Start with these facts. Can you refutte any of them?

Even if the source is pure LEFT, the facts speak for themself correct? If you are being paid by people whose intrest it is to disprove GW or climate change, where do your intrests fall? Dubious at best, I say. Better to trust those scientists with public funding.

Why refuting facts? Facts are facts.
So what do you think about Hansen, head of NASA research on climate change, who received 250,000$ from the Heinz foundation? Does ketchup money makes more palatable science that oil money ?

And what about the nuclear industry funding? For example, France has 14 climatologists who are lead authors for the IPCC 2007 report. 12 of them belongs to a behemoth public research structure named ... CEA (acronym for "Commisssariat of Energie which-make-zero-CO2-pollution").
France has another public research structure called IFP (Institut français du Pétrole) which has as many scientists as the CEA. But curiously, no one is "mandated" to conduct highly visible research on global warming. It must be a pure coincidence, right ?

It's easy to do, just flood the landscape with unsupported bias sources and soon the supported and peer reviewed essays begin to have the same credibility as the phoney ones.

I've decided to go and shoot guns with my next door neighbor over the winter holiday.

cjhsa wrote:

I am an anti-gw. Change happens.

???? What's an anti-gw?

Still--anything can be expected of those who recommend our trusting scientists on government funding.

Diest TKO wrote:

It's easy to do, just flood the landscape with unsupported bias sources and soon the supported and peer reviewed essays begin to have the same credibility as the phoney ones.

That's works both sides man.

TKO wrote-

Quote:

I've decided to go and shoot guns with my next door neighbor over the winter holiday.

So--TKO hankers after the feel of a gun in his hands does he?

And enough to go traipsing around in the frozen woods popping at little creatures with no defences all got up in expensive kit when he could be sprawled across the couch watching the game with a beer in his hand and his bank account hardly touched.

Still--anything can be expected of those who recommend our trusting scientists on government funding.