Articles Tagged "Russell Cook"

The so-called global warming crisis is falling apart at ever-increasing rates as skeptical bloggers chisel away at faults in the IPCC and whitewashes of ClimateGate, while digging up long-forgotten dire forecasts of weather driven by global cooling. It all must be working. Polls indicate downward trends in public concern over the issue, so organizations like Google come up with plans to fix public ignorance.

Global warming believers think this putative ignorance can be cured by shouting their old 3-part mantra louder:

1. "the science is settled";
2. skeptic scientists are paid by fossil fuel industries to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact";
3. the media gives too much attention to those skeptics, who do not deserve equal time.

This strategy works when nobody questions anything about those three points -- thus the shouting.

SolveClimateNews.com blessed us with an article telling how Google "has brought together a team of 21 climate researchers to improve the way the science of global warming is communicated using new media". This, no doubt in response to widespread reports of a Gallup poll showing ever-decreasing concern by the public about global warming, which must also explain why the GOP-controlled US House is moving forward with actions to thwart greenhouse gas regulations. Ignorance run amok, thus Google's experts are here to save the day.

If only that were the case. The enormous irony here is the very service Google itself provides: people can do their own fact checking on the so-called global warming crisis and all facets related to it.

The article quotes one member of the Google team:

"The uncertainty argument, that we really don't know what is going on and that climate scientists are corrupt, has been reasonably effective in the last few years," said Andrew Dessler, also a Google fellow and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University...

People who are opposed to regulation ... [are] not trying to prove that climate change [science] is wrong. They're trying to prove that there is an argument going on," he said. "They're just trying to create noise."

The collection of Original Papers at SPPI are authored by people with impressive credentials in science, or at least they have a demonstrated grasp of the various technical aspects of global warming theory through their history of writing on the subject.

I must stress on no uncertain terms that I do not share those accomplishments, a fact that will no doubt delight believers of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and prompt them to read no further into this paper, but instead accuse SPPI of issuing papers written by people unqualified to speak about the subject. That would be unfortunate, as the evidence I present here and the questions I ask are things any unqualified, disinterested bystander might find and ask about.

Indeed, believers of AGW could have posed the following to each other in order to see if their criticisms about skeptic scientists survive under hard scrutiny.

CLICK to download PDF file and read "Are Skeptic Scientists Corrupt?" by Russell Cook from SPPI

When a member of the baby boomer generation like myself sees someone describe environmentalist author Ross Gelbspan as the “Columbo of climate change,” it’s a bit sad that the description is basically lost on the younger generations who probably have no idea who Lieutenant Columbo was. I loved that old ’70s-’80s television series, where viewers routinely saw the guest star’s character commit the “perfect crime,” only to be caught in the sights of homicide detective Columbo, played by Peter Falk. He would always begin asking ordinary questions as a matter of standard police inquiry, but ultimately pestered the criminal with unrelenting sporadic follow-up questions until the crime was exposed. It was priceless to see the pained look on the criminal’s face every time Columbo’s unexpected appearance was followed by his trademark “I don’t mean to bother you, but there’s just one more thing…”

I’m also a bit troubled by the uncontested claim that Gelbspan is any kind of Lt. Columbo. Yes, the book accompanying Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” movie said Gelbspan was “a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who discovered a 1991 coal industry internal memo” with a phrase sounding like a top-down directive for skeptic scientists to deliberately portray global warming as unsettled science. Gelbspan is highly praised in viral form across the internet for his 1997 The Heat is On book, in which this “discovery” supposedly frames skeptic scientists as hopelessly corrupt.

The problem is, literally anyone who undertakes a search at the Pulitzer organization’s web site will soon discover Gelbspan is not listed as a Pulitzer winner.

The 12/6 announcement by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal in a global warming nuisance case is a classic example of a double-edged sword. As reported by Fox News:

The Supreme Court announced Monday it will give further consideration to a closely-watched lawsuit filed by environmentalists, eight states and New York City blaming the problems associated with global warming on the carbon dioxide output of five major power companies.

An ultimate judgment against the energy providers could lead to dramatic changes in the energy marketplace and ripple into other industries. But the high court's decision to give the matter closer attention makes that possibility less likely.

In asking the high court to review the case, lawyers for the power companies said the plaintiffs have no standing to file a lawsuit. Instead, they contend, only the federal government through the Environmental Protection Agency has the ability to hold power companies accountable for contributing to global warming.

Excerpt: With many red flags, most notably an accusation relying on a memo not seen in full context even in lawsuits having the potential to reshape multibillion-dollar industries, a simple question must be asked:

If no parallel is established between skeptic scientists and highly questionable tobacco industry maneuvers, do the Comer and Kivalina lawsuits unravel because they depend so heavily on the “reposition” phrase, and does the Connecticut case also crumble with other arguments about human-caused global warming, if the skeptic scientists’ criticisms of IPCC assessments are not corrupted?

There is more critical question:

Rather than a tobacco industry-style parallel to confuse the public about the causes of global warming, does it appear such a parallel was fabricated when none existed, which led the public to believe the IPCC has no legitimate opposition?

Russell Cook
Phoenix, AZ USA

Click source to read FULL report from Russell Cook

A new discovery in my research prompted me to use it as a "Nov 2 US election connection" part of an article for Breitbart.com's BigJournalism: Ross Gelbspan's favorite "reposition global warming" phrase is found in 2007 US Congressional testimony, and now the impending US House leadership change may allow Rep James Sensenbrenner to become chairman of a committee that can investigate the usage of the phrase by enviro-activists to frame AGW in the media. RC

Click source to read FULL report from Russell Cook

Global warming alarmists are seriously considering rebranding their fear campaign in the face of public skepticism.

A September 16 Fox News report analyzed the suggestion by Science Czar John Holdren to rename global warming "global climate disruption," while also offering this tidbit:

In a 2007 presentation, Holdren suggested a similar phrase change -- "global climatic disruption."

The newest suggestion prompted many satirical alternatives, however, his own 2007 variant actually goes back to 1997, revealing a far more serious association with an eco-advocacy group.

According to a May 14, 1997 endorsement request to scientists made by directors of Ozone Action, "The enclosed statement was initiated and written by six of your colleagues who hope you will join them in raising awareness about the threat of climate change."

As I detailed in my July American Thinker article, Ozone Action seems to be the epicenter of a successful campaign to portray skeptic scientists as tools of Big Coal and Oil executives. The Statement the directors refer to is seen here: Scientists Statement on Global Climatic Disruption. One of the other six was Jane Lubchenco, current head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and founder of the Leopold Leadership Program, which she and another Statement signer, Hal Mooney, created in 1998 to "train mid-career academic environmental researchers to communicate effectively to non-scientific audiences." While she was president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1997, the AAAS website had a direct link to Ozone Action's page for the Statement. Arguably, the Leopold group, given Lubchenco's association with Ozone Action, would perhaps be good at communicating the IPCC version of global warming, while not speaking highly of skeptic scientists.

Warmist true believers bitterly cling their mantra that only the corrupting influence sinister money could possibly explain skepticism toward the theory they embrace as gospel truth.

In case anyone is unfamiliar with the simplicity of the man-caused global warming idea: overwhelming scientific conclusions say we are causing floods / droughts / blazing summers / intense winters; and don't listen to any skeptic scientists -- they're corrupt.

This mantra is fine until you start asking questions. On the so-called consensus of "numerous" IPCC scientists, it appears Donna Laframboise has now exposed a rather troubling set of problems with the IPCC's 1995 Health Chapter authors, and John O'Sullivan has just recently pointed out some details the NOAA would rather not have you know about, while Steve McIntyre continues to tear down the ClimateGate scandal with ever finer levels of detail.

Considering how Exxon, Chevron and others have climbed on the CO2 reduction bandwagon, believers of man-caused global warming may have realized the ‘skeptic scientists corrupted by big oil' idea was rapidly losing credibility. Skeptic populations are increasing, somebody must be funding them.

Of course, the fundamental premise of "big coal/oil funding = corruption" has never been proven; the lack of such evidence becomes quite obvious when reading Ross Gelbspan's 1997 book "The Heat is On." As Gelbspan is the most widely acknowledged promulgator of this accusation, it becomes quite a challenge to find people whose accusations against skeptic scientists aren't rooted in his 1997 book.

The Warmists are at it again, attempting to manipulate media coverage of global warming, in a manner reminiscent of JournoList members attempting to downplay troublesome Obama stories in the 2008 election. The is not the first time for such media manipulation, either.

Now, a reader tip at Anthony Watt's popular blog site seems to indicate the Union of Concerned Scientists has set up, instead of a network to coordinate talking points, a media alert request page that could end up being an intimidation system against certain journalists. At the UCS web site, we are instructed to "Monitor the print and broadcast media outlets in your area and alert us to misrepresentations about global warming". Considering the multi-tens-of-thousands of people reading Watts's blogs, I think his followers are likely to crash the UCS email system with alerts about overblown reports of man-caused global warming. Following the article, one hilarious comment by Accu-Weather's Joe Bastardi suggests a counter-group called "The Union of VERY concerned scientists."

Trouble is, this isn't exactly the first time UCS has set up an alert system. Back in 1997, as seen at this web page copy (save your own copy in case this one gets scrubbed) their Sound Science Initiative had out-flowing alerts and directives with talking points, in this case to thwart the efforts of the Oregon Petition Project:

"This message from the Union of Concerned Scientists is to caution you about a petition effort to reject the Kyoto Protocol that is circulating throughout colleges, universities, and research institutions nationwide.... The Petition Project is apparently a deliberate attempt by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the Marshall Institute - identified as the article authors' affiliations - to deceive the scientific community with misinformation on the subject of climate change. The Project's conclusions reflect the authors' political ideology, not objective peer-reviewed science. If this petition is circulating in your department, please consider urging your colleagues NOT to sign it."

Click source to read FULL article from Russell Cook