Global warming denialist list full of lies

[bascule]

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/business/45-scientists-dump-global-warming-deniers-in-24-hours/1117

 

We've been over this list before. I can't find the thread

 

This is the one that contained names like Dr. Hugh Jackass.

 

Well anyway, 45 scientists from the list, when contacted, were all "WTF? No way." Here's some examples:

 

I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.”

-- Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

 

I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.”

-- Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

 

I don’t believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article.”

-- Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

 

Also, this list was happy to accept input from "scientists" whose fields of study are nowhere remotely close to climate scientists (e.g. computer science, food science, astronomy, etc.)

[JohnB]

Personally i don't pay much attention to any "list" of that type. It strikes me as marketing and "Appeal to Authority" gone bad.

 

I do like some of the comments that follow though.

Earth is very different from Mars or Saturn, and has always enjoyed a relatively stable climate.

News to me.

Clint K, there is also a lot of money to be made in studying “gravity”. Everyone knows that heavy things fall to the earth, that is just the way it is. Scientists push this idiotic “gravity” theory because they do not want to acknowledge the role of God in our everyday lives.

There is no Gravity, the Earth just sucks.

This is an excellent post, and an excellent blog, but you would do well to steer away from the term “global warming.” It’s a totally inaccurate term, and its rampant use is one of the reasons the other side has such a good semantic argument. You should really opt for “climate change” whenever possible.

I advise moving the goal posts.

Concerning global warming, why are the advocates always in favor of socialism as a means of solving the issue. Why not just be in favor of stringent property rights? Make it illegal to pollute any property not owned by the polluter and treat it like a crime the equivalent of destroying someone’s property.

I kind of like this idea. I don't know how you make it workable, but there's a basis there.

[padren]

Concerning global warming, why are the advocates always in favor of socialism as a means of solving the issue. Why not just be in favor of stringent property rights? Make it illegal to pollute any property not owned by the polluter and treat it like a crime the equivalent of destroying someone’s property.

I kind of like this idea. I don't know how you make it workable, but there's a basis there.

 

Sounds like it would require a pretty massive centralized government, and probably someone like Stalin to enforce it.

[iNow]

Turns out some of the people on the list don't even exist:

 

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/a-few-scientists-who-wont-deny-being-deniers

"Jull, B. L. K., Physical Research Lab., Ahmedabad, India" is also unlikely to complain as he appears not to exist. There is a Tim Jull from the University of Arizona (who probably doesn't want to be on the list) and a BLK Somajahulu, now retired from the Physical Research Lab in Ahmedabad who likely ALSO doesn't want to be on this list.

 

We can't say whether Avery is sloppy in his transcription or that he just throws in the odd imaginary character to flesh out his "argument." But if there is a third potential explanation, we'll be happy to hear about it.

 

 

More telling, the Heartland Institute responded to the criticisms thusly:

 

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23207

DeSmogBlog, a Web site created to attack conservative and free-market nonprofit organizations, targeted The Heartland Institute in late April 2008, and in particular two lists posted on Heartland’s Web site [ Research by Hundreds of Scientists Undermines Global Warming Alarmism - by Tom Swiss - The Heartland Institute ] of scientists whose published work contradicts some of the main tenets of global warming alarmism. The blog persuaded some of the scientists appearing in the lists to ask that their names be removed from the lists.

 

In response to the complaints, The Heartland Institute has changed the headlines that its PR department had chosen for some of the documents related to the lists, from “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” to “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.”

 

Aside from those headlines, none of the articles and news releases produced by The Heartland Institute or the Hudson Institute (the original source of the lists) claims that all of the scientists who appear in the lists currently doubt that the modern warming is man-made.

 

 

In response:

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insitute-backs-off-fraudulent-list-refuses-to-apologize

The Heartland Institute has withdrawn its claim of having identified "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts about Global Warming Scares," but is refusing the demands by dozens of those scientists to be removed from the Heartland's original offending document.

 

 

Later in the Heartland Institute article, its author Joseph Bast asserts that the scientists who have contacted his organization requesting their names be removed from the list have no legal or ethical right to do so, and in doing so, have “crossed the line between scientific research and policy advocacy”.

 

This is pretty clear cut propaganda agencies, pure and simple. They didn't back off their claims, they used this as an opportunity to attack the scientists and the institute’s critics.

 

False, inaccurate nonsensical propaganda and it's disgusting.

[ecoli]

News to me.

The gravitational affect of the moon and sun does help stabilize the axis of rotation, so that the climate is relatively stable, compared to other planets.

 

I kind of like this idea. I don't know how you make it workable, but there's a basis there.

I like the idea of dealing with environmental law like property law, as long as we still had some way of managing and testing pollution standards.

[iNow]

The gravitational affect of the moon and sun does help stabilize the axis of rotation, so that the climate is relatively stable, compared to other planets.

 

We also have oceans which add to that stability.

 

Mars, no oceans, quick change from little inputs.

Earth, big oceans, slow change from huge inputs.

 

 

The oceans make it "harder" for the climate to change since they don't react as quickly as plain old air (at varying atmospheres) does.

[bascule]

Not to mention a magnetic field which repels solar wind...

[iNow]

Another story today suggesting that denial of global warming and lying was happening, and was political:

 

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i-fo9VF-W4wxLy-opPvOK9ZvCl9QD9127KVG0

 

NASA's press office "marginalized or mischaracterized" studies on global warming between 2004 and 2006, the agency's own internal watchdog concluded.

 

In a report released Monday, NASA's inspector general office called it "inappropriate political interference" by political appointees in the press office. It said that the agency's top management wasn't part of the censorship, nor were career officials.

 

 

I like the fact that it was NASA's own watchdog group who caught this and published the report.

 

 

NASA public affairs officials criticized by the report called it wrong, saying they were always open and truthful.

 

Not so, according to the report. The report did not directly accuse them of lying, but used more nuanced terms such as "mendacity" and "dissembling." The space agency complained those terms were unjust.

 

The report concluded that "inappropriate political posturing or advantage" was behind some of these actions.

 

 

 

 

Full report here:

http://oig.nasa.gov/investigations/OI_STI_Summary.pdf

 

 

I would like to call everyone's attention to section IV-C (Examples of Purported Interference) from pages 26 to 32, and also section V (Allegations and Instances of Improper Denial of Media Access) immediately thereafter.

 

 

 

From the Conclusion section toward the end of the report, the following was shared:

 

"After carefully reviewing the relevant facts and circumstances in this matter, we conclude that officials in the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs did, in fact, manage the release of information concerning climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, and mischaracterized the scientific information within the particular media over which that office had control. Further, on at least one occasion, the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs denied media access to a NASA scientist, Dr. Hansen, due, in part, to that office’s concern that Dr. Hansen would not limit his statements to science but would, instead, entertain a policy discussion on the issue of climate change.

 

We also conclude that inappropriate political posturing or advantage was the proximate cause in at least some of these actions. While we did not find that all Headquarters Office of Public Affairs’ adjustments to climate change news releases were politically motivated, the preponderance of the evidence does, however, point to politics inextricably interwoven into the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs’ news dissemination process at that time. Climate change scientists and affected career Public Affairs Officers believed that, as a result of their proposed media releases being altered, delayed, or converted to other (lesser) media, their work was in fact compromised for political advantage—especially when it conflicted with the Administration’s policies or priorities."

Edited June 3, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[JohnB]

Further, on at least one occasion, the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs denied media access to a NASA scientist, Dr. Hansen, due, in part, to that office’s concern that Dr. Hansen would not limit his statements to science but would, instead, entertain a policy discussion on the issue of climate change.

Are you sure they weren't trying to help him keep his job? In most nations commenting on policy is a sure fire way for .gov employees to get sacked.