Climate change deniers plot in London 28 January 05

Well, I’ll never buy Exxon gasoline again! It’s BP all the way (at least they had the savvy to call themselves “Beyond Petroleum” at one time).

Good. The skeptics are in London. Now’s your chance to enlighten them. Please don’t send them back here until they totally recant & become sensible.

According to your site, Sourcewatch, the Marshall Institute received 77 different grants the total of which was $5.58 million dollars between 1985 and 2001. None of that money came from either Exxon or the Exxon Education Foundation. That is an average of $72,000 per grant. Exxon Mobil gave them $90,000 in 2002. Your website does not tell us how much the Exxon Education Foundation provided but it says that ExxonMobil gave them $90,000 in 2002. Does that sound like the kind of lucre that would change the minds of the folks at the Marshall Institute? I don’t think so.

It also lists 10 other foundations as having been donors and implies that the American Standard Companies Foundation contributes as much as the Exxon Foundation does. American Standard Companies makes bathroom and kitchen products (sinks, tubs, johns, showers, faucets . . .), heating and cooling equipment and vehicle braking and suspension equipment. Not much energy related stuff there.

Richard Lindzen is hardly an “old hack”. He is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which as you know is one of the leading science and technology centers in the world. Fred Singer does not qualify either. He has had a long and varied career. Every position that he has held has been either at a US government agency or at a University until he began at the Science and Environmental Policy Program.

The International Astronomical Union named an asteroid, Minor Planet #7107 in his honor because of his work with the Cambridge Congress Network. Apparently, the man does some things well.

The headquarters of the Scientific Alliance is in London, I think it legitimate that they meet in their hometown.

Your comment about the American far right says more about your perch on the far left than it does about the impending visitors.

By the way, since we are now discussion misspellings of names, it is Norbert. It is not, as you write Norbet.

I’m surprised the skeptics didn’t try to REALLY rub it in and hold their little confab in KYOTO….

Ah, but that would’ve required THINKING, wouldn’t it? Never mind….

Norbert,

I didn’t know there was any dispute about Esso, and other US oil companies, supporting the sceptics’ stance. Certainly there seems ample credible publicity about this, for example, see a recent article by Professor May of the Royal Society using the link below:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1398885,00.html

Whatever the facts, I would say that Esso has an image problem. If I were running Esso, and wanted to support the sceptics, I would do so very secretly! Open support by Esso of the sceptics (and attacking Kyoto etc.) makes Esso vulnerable to consumer concerns about Global Warming – concerns which I hope become universal. Even though Esso is a huge corporation, I do believe they could be seriously damaged, if not destroyed, should they mismanage their “corporate brand” with respect to Global Warming (see case study at the end of this blog). In contrast, it seems that BP appear to be much more sensitive on this issue – setting up BP solar etc. etc.

http://www.bpsolar.com/

Norbert, I would just like to say that I welcome your contributions to this blog. You certainly make me think! But I sometimes wonder whether you are using the Socratic Method in order to keep the rest of us on our toes. You can’t really disagree with everything anyone else writes; or can you?

Regards,

Peter

PS. To demonstrate the potential vulnerability of Esso, consider the following case study. In the 1960s, especially after the Cuban Missile Crisis, people were very worried about nuclear war in a way that many people are getting worried about Global Warming today. The example shows how a single TV advert helped to undermine Barry Goldwater’s US Presidential campaign. Imagine a similar campaign being run by (say) Greenpeace or the “Stop Esso” http://www.stopesso.com/campaign/00000184.php campaign, and substitute “Global Warming” for “Nuclear War” and “Esso” for “Barry Goldwater”. If Global Warming becomes as big a public concern as nuclear war was in the 1960s, I think this could lead to a massive consumer boycott of Esso.

The Little Girl and the Daisy

“The advert .. was transmitted during a break in CBS’s Monday Night at the Movies on 7 September 1964. It was an ad paid for by the Democratic supporters of President Lyndon Johnson, and it was so powerful, had such a cataclysmic effect, that it was never shown again during the Presidential Campaign. It has become famous under the name The Little Girl and the Daisy. In essence the ad is simple: a little girl is picking the petals off a daisy and counting “One, two, three …” As she reaches ten the picture freezes and then zooms in to her eye as we hear a missile countdown: “Ten, nine, eight …” down to one. There follows a picture of a nuclear explosion over which we hear President Johnson’s voice intone: “This then is the choice, whether to love each other or to go into the dark. We must love each other or die.”

First … The advert tells the viewer nothing new. In fact it’s hard to work out quite what it tells the viewer in any intellectual sense. A little girl is pulling the petals off a daisy and then suddenly there is a nuclear explosion – what policy is this addressing? What information is it passing on?

Second …the advert locks into an issue that the voter is concerned with: the safety of the human race, individually personified by a pretty girl playing in a field. Who would wish to disturb the child? Implicit answer: Johnson’s opponent in the Presidential election, the Republican candidate Barry Goldwater, who was alleged to have made intemperate statements about the possibility of fighting a limited nuclear war “Aha!” the viewer is supposed to feel, and thus contribute to the advert, “this is my greatest fear realized. Barry Goldwater might start a nuclear war.” … nowhere is the real message of the ad actually stated in propositional terms: don’t vote for Goldwater – he’ll cause a nuclear war. The viewer makes an emotional judgement about what he is seeing: he feels that a nuclear war is possible if he votes for Goldwater. And feelings and impressions are almost impossible to dislodge. How can Goldwater refute the ad? No formal charges are laid against him, yet a series of devastating but unanswerable impressions are left in the voter’s mind.

Third, the advert is presented as a piece of drama. Here is a pretty little girl in a field who is blown up by a nuclear explosion caused by a trigger-happy President. It’s a fairy story in which Goldwater is the hidden figure of evil, a kind of Republican wicked witch. Only this is a futuristic drama with a difference – it is interactive. The voter can stop the fairy story becoming reality by withholding his vote from Goldwater.”

Source: “Selling Politics” by Laurence Rees (1992)

I visited the web site that Mark Lynas linked (SourceWatch) and looked a bit deeper than he had into the information available on that site. What I found was that ExxonMobil has provided only a small portion of the budget for the George Marshall Institute, which Mark called “Exxon-funded”. I found no evidence on the site that even implied that other oil companies provided any of the support for the institute. Instead, I found a list of a dozen or so foundations and corporations, none of which had any obvious connection to the oil industry.

I think that this is a common situation. Persons like Mark Lynas and Bob May who believe deeply in the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis want badly to believe that all of those who oppose their belief have sinister motives. The information available at SourceWatch indicates organizations which have no vested interests in the outcome, such as the Standard Companies and various foundations, may have an interests that are independent of short-term financial gains. Perhaps, some folks and organizations just hold a different opinion.

I do not know what Bob May means when he says ” . . . George C Marshall Institute, a body headed by the chairman emeritus of the GCC, William O’Keefe, . . .”. According to SourceWatch, Robert Jastrow (see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Jastrow) a man who has had a distinguished career in physics and astrophysics at various agencies of the US government is Chairman of the Board of the Marshall Institute. O’Keefe is one of 12 other directors, most of whom have or had careers in Government Service or at Universities.

I also object to May’s characterization of IPCC as being “the world’s most reliable source of information on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions”. I believe that IPCC is not at all reliable. I also believe that most of those who run the IPCC have financial interests in the outcome. If you look, you will see an eerie correspondence between the nations represented in the IPCC heirarchy and the nations scheduled to receive the largess of developed nations under the Kyoto accord. One pundit said that Kyoto is a scheme to transfer wealth from the poorest persons in rich countries to the richest persons in poor countries. That seems apt to me.

May’s ad hominem attack on Robert Hanlon includes a line about Michael Crichton, “a sci-fi writer who has previously warned of the dangers of bringing dinosaurs back to life and of nano-robots turning the world into grey goo.” I have not read “Prey”, the novel about nano technology, so I cannot comment on that. I have read Jurassic Park however and the point of the novel is not the dangers of bringing dinosaurs back to life, that is merely a vehicle for a discussion of the dangers of taking shortcuts during manipulation of genes. Crichton, by the way is more than a “sci-fi” writer. The site at http://www.crichton-official.com/aboutmc/biography.html provides the following information about Crichton. “Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Entered Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; spent one year as a post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.”

The man may be qualified to understand and comment on issues of science.

May’s penultimate paragraph is a classic example of half-truth, misleading statements and ad hominem attacks. I have always thought that those who rely on such tactics probably have little confidence that they could prevail in a purely technical debate on the scientific merits of an issue.

I find the ExxonMobil (Esso) approach to the issue refeshing and admirable. I suppose that they could revert to subterfuge and sneak attacks. I believe that they realize that their stance could result in damage to their brand, certainly they realize that their stand has engendered ire among activists. Yet, they stand firmly and pubicly for their beliefs.

Is it possible that the BP approach is a hollow public relations ruse, which has little sustance?

No, I do not disagree with everything that everyone writes on this site. I believe that everyone should think.

Interesting parable, The Little Girl and the Daisy. Which side in this debate is spinning incredible tales about impending apocolypse (hurricanes, drought, innundation) and which side is saying “Wait a minute, let’s look at the data”?

I suppose that it is possible that IPCC learned a lot from Lyndon Johnson.

Norbertzangox you said let’s look at the data! I have invited everyone to look at a reference we both agree now is accurate.

I repeat my previous post on Alaska AGAIN until we get it correct once and for all: Now that we have established that we indeed have an accurate temperature record, let me provide a quote from that source from “BOWLING” who is a PHd who wrote papers on Alaska’s Temperature record and she lives there. She represents the University of Fairbanks, Alaska

AGAIN, Her direct quote below from this reference:

“…The mean annual temperature from 1977 through 1998 never dropped as low as the average from 1954 through 1976 ….”

In other words, the climate record during the period of 1954 through 1976 (22 year period) shows a much lower temperature average than the period of 1977 through 1998 (21 year period). It then becomes a matter of interpretation of the data in the proper context as to whether you can say Alaska has not warmed since 1977.

To be fair to you, Norbertznagox, there was an abrupt temperature rise during 1976 and for 21 years later, the temperature cycle has remained higher than the 1954 through 1976 period without a similar abrupt rise during this period.

The significance here is that the temperatures have remained high and have never returned back. Even if you can claim that this temperature rise now is at a plateau period then it becomes misleading to make a statement that Alaska has not warmed since 1977.

It is better to say exactly what Bowling, a REAL climate scientist, said which is “…The mean annual temperature from 1977 through 1998 never dropped as low as the average from 1954 through 1976 ….” This compares a 21 year average to a 22 year average which seems like a more logical comparison.

In fact the difference between these 2 time periods indicates a temperature rise of 2.5 F (1.4 C) for the 1977 through 1998 period.

So, when I look at the same reference and same data that you, Norbertzangox, say is accurate, then get I get an increase of 2.5 F or 1.4 C. showing Alaska’s warming. How did that happen?

Let everyone check out this site below and see who is misrepresenting data and references to make their case. I am making my case that Norbertzangox must exclude himself out of reasonable scientific debate because he cannot claim others as being biased or politically motivated when he himself has proven to me that he is already doing just that.

I leave it up to the reader to decide. The reference is here below and Norbert already confirmed he agrees with this reference in a recent post as being accurate. How more fair can I be to our resident skeptic?

THE FANB TEMPERATURE RECORD (measure of mean Alaskan mainland temperature, using the averages of Fairbanks, Anchorage, Nome, and Barrow), Sue Ann Bowling Ph.D, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Last update January 3, 2000

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Bowling/FANB.html

The following is a quote from Dr. Bowling’s paper on the subject of Alaskan temperatures. This is from the paper that you linked; the paper that Bowling refers to in your most recent link.

“It thus seems likely that the observed warming in the mid ‘70’s in Alaska is real and associated with a circulation shift. Whether it is part of an unusually long-period oscillation or has something to do with carbon dioxide is still a mystery.” (http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Bowling/AKchange.html)

I also remember that Dr. Papineau (the reference that I provided, http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/climvar/climate-paper.html) said that he believed that a shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation caused the upward temperature shift. This is consistent with Dr. Bowling’s statement above. Dr. Papineau also said that the temperature since 1977 appears to be declining toward the historic levels. That statement is consistent with the shape of the temperature curve in your most recent link.

Where’s the beef?

Hi Norbert,

I was merely pointing out that you lack the competence to read a simple line graph and I already proved that. That was my only point with that original post.

Your quote: “Dr. Papineau also said that the temperature since 1977 appears to be declining toward the historic levels” is from your link not mine.” Does Dr. Papineau have the same graph? I do not think so.

And then, you said: “That statement is consistent with the shape of the temperature curve in your most recent link.”

I say that to draw that conclusion from the Bowling graph is totally wrong. This is not the conclusion which Bowling arrived at which was my reference. No one seriously can look at that graph and make that statement. So you must not be serious and just joking.

My beef is that you cannot read a line graph in its proper context.

I refer the reader to the orginal Bowling reference below:

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Bowling/FANB.html

And also to my previous post below where I show that Norbert cannot read a line graph in the proper context.

Norbert, You can’t handle the truth?

http://www.marklynas.org/wind/message/615.html

I am interested but disappointed by the treatment of the issue of climate change. I was surprised to hear that there were scientists who disputed climate change. Yet on further investigation it seems to me that there are few people who really know what is going to happen. I think that the confidence with which some people talk on this issue is as much a cause for concern as those who offer a sceptical argument.

Mark, you claim that the Scientific Alliance generally opposes or undermines science. On looking at their website this seems very far from the truth. Indeed it seems that they have been very supportive of science in many areas including, contraversially, GM. There, as i understand, the scientific community is reasonably confident of its safety. But this is opposed by many. Frankly I personally don’t see the need for GM food, but I think its interesting to see how the views of the scientific community are accepted on some occasions but not on others.

Mark, you offer a highly engaging opinion and bring admirable dedication to the causes in which you believe. However, it is interesting to note that you do not have a scientific background yourself. How much more of an expert are you than I am?

I am very concerned and tired by the way both sides work the environmental debate. It seems to me that many have an agenda, and few are willing to have a truly open mind.

It seems to me that those who do not have an open mind focus on exploiting weaknesses in any uncertainty they can find. The people who seem to be the least unbiased are those that include the words “I do not know” or I am not sure” in their posts or share somewhat of the opposing side of their opinion on an issue.

If I see someone who seems to be overly selective in the references cited, then I want to bring that issue to light so we can all look at it more objectively. I am biased on one aspect and that is we should be proactive in making positive adjustments to reduce energy use and diversify our resource base and improving infrastructure to be more efficient. I think just the risk of our impact on climate should be enough justification despite the uncertainty.

I do agree with you on the science being politicized and polarized. In my opinion, the skeptics seem to lean more this way than the others.

I also am influenced by melting ice and how it so nicely coincides with the accumulation of greenhouse gases. Sometimes just simple empirical observations lead me to believe that climate change is occurring despite the difficulties of the science to model and predict the climate with a high level of accuracy or precision.

For me, the sad part is the polarization rather than any specific political agenda. I hate to see such wide ranging views about the state of the science from gloom and doom to nothing to worry about at all.

It would be nice if we had a little more balance and that no one would go to extremes to prove a case by only suggesting the worse case scenario or dismissing all concerns. That leads to confusion and inaction.

Both extremes lead to inaction. If it appears hopeless, then why bother? If we have nothing to worry about, then why bother? Sometimes, it may help if a consensus is reached on what is most probable to occur and my bet is that this would warrant some action on our part. Well, that is my opinion.

I think you are correct to suggest that we all keep an open mind. I do believe this occurs, more often than not, on Mark’s site.