The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:07 PM GMT on November 25, 2009

Share this Blog
33
+

In 1954, the tobacco industry realized it had a serious problem. Thirteen scientific studies had been published over the preceding five years linking smoking to lung cancer. With the public growing increasingly alarmed about the health effects of smoking, the tobacco industry had to move quickly to protect profits and stem the tide of increasingly worrisome scientific news. Big Tobacco turned to one the world's five largest public relations firms, Hill and Knowlton, to help out. Hill and Knowlton designed a brilliant Public Relations (PR) campaign to convince the public that smoking is not dangerous. They encouraged the tobacco industry to set up their own research organization, the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), which would produce science favorable to the industry, emphasize doubt in all the science linking smoking to lung cancer, and question all independent research unfavorable to the tobacco industry. The CTR did a masterful job at this for decades, significantly delaying and reducing regulation of tobacco products. George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, who is President Obama's nominee to head the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), wrote a meticulously researched 2008 book called, Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. In the book, he wrote: "the industry understood that the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad. Create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion. Throw mud at the anti-smoking research under the assumption that some of it is bound to stick. And buy time, lots of it, in the bargain". The title of Michaels' book comes from a 1969 memo from a tobacco company executive: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy". Hill and Knowlton, on behalf of the tobacco industry, had founded the "Manufactured Doubt" industry.

The Manufactured Doubt industry grows up
As the success of Hill and Knowlton's brilliant Manufactured Doubt campaign became apparent, other industries manufacturing dangerous products hired the firm to design similar PR campaigns. In 1967, Hill and Knowlton helped asbestos industry giant Johns-Manville set up the Asbestos Information Association (AIA). The official-sounding AIA produced "sound science" that questioned the link between asbestos and lung diseases (asbestos currently kills 90,000 people per year, according to the World Health Organization). Manufacturers of lead, vinyl chloride, beryllium, and dioxin products also hired Hill and Knowlton to devise product defense strategies to combat the numerous scientific studies showing that their products were harmful to human health.

By the 1980s, the Manufactured Doubt industry gradually began to be dominated by more specialized "product defense" firms and free enterprise "think tanks". Michaels wrote in Doubt is Their Product about the specialized "product defense" firms: "Having cut their teeth manufacturing uncertainty for Big Tobacco, scientists at ChemRisk, the Weinberg Group, Exponent, Inc., and other consulting firms now battle the regulatory agencies on behalf of the manufacturers of benzene, beryllium, chromium, MTBE, perchlorates, phthalates, and virtually every other toxic chemical in the news today....Public health interests are beside the point. This is science for hire, period, and it is extremely lucrative".

Joining the specialized "product defense" firms were the so-called "think tanks". These front groups received funding from manufacturers of dangerous products and produced "sound science" in support of their funders' products, in the name of free enterprise and free markets. Think tanks such as the George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been active for decades in the Manufactured Doubt business, generating misleading science and false controversy to protect the profits of their clients who manufacture dangerous products.

The ozone hole battle
In 1975, the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) industry realized it had a serious problem. The previous year, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina, chemists at the University of California, Irvine, had published a scientific paper warning that human-generated CFCs could cause serious harm to Earth's protective ozone layer. They warned that the loss of ozone would significantly increase the amount of skin-damaging ultraviolet UV-B light reaching the surface, greatly increasing skin cancer and cataracts. The loss of stratospheric ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone loss had been observed yet, CFCs should be banned, they said. The CFC industry hired Hill and Knowlton to fight back. As is essential in any Manufactured Doubt campaign, Hill and Knowlton found a respected scientist to lead the effort--noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution. In 1975, Scorer went on a month-long PR tour, blasting Molina and Rowland, calling them "doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing that has been accumulated so far is a number of theories." To complement Scorer's efforts, Hill and Knowlton unleashed their standard package of tricks learned from decades of serving the tobacco industry:

- Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.

- Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.

- Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.

- Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.

- Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.

- Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.

- Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.

- Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.

- Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world.

- Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.

- Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.

The campaign worked, and CFC regulations were delayed many years, as Hill and Knowlton boasted in internal documents. The PR firm also took credit for keeping public opinion against buying CFC aerosols to a minimum, and helping change the editorial positions of many newspapers.

In the end, Hill and Knowlton's PR campaign casting doubt on the science of ozone depletion by CFCs turned out to have no merit. Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential environmental disaster.

The battle over global warming
In 1988, the fossil fuel industry realized it had a serious problem. The summer of 1988 had shattered century-old records for heat and drought in the U.S., and NASA's Dr. James Hansen, one of the foremost climate scientists in the world, testified before Congress that human-caused global warming was partially to blame. A swelling number of scientific studies were warning of the threat posed by human-cause climate change, and that consumption of fossil fuels needed to slow down. Naturally, the fossil fuel industry fought back. They launched a massive PR campaign that continues to this day, led by the same think tanks that worked to discredit the ozone depletion theory. The George C. Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been key players in both fights, and there are numerous other think tanks involved. Many of the same experts who had worked hard to discredit the science of the well-established link between cigarette smoke and cancer, the danger the CFCs posed to the ozone layer, and the dangers to health posed by a whole host of toxic chemicals, were now hard at work to discredit the peer-reviewed science supporting human-caused climate change.

As is the case with any Manufactured Doubt campaign, a respected scientist was needed to lead the battle. One such scientist was Dr. Frederick Seitz, a physicist who in the 1960s chaired the organization many feel to be the most prestigious science organization in the world--the National Academy of Sciences. Seitz took a position as a paid consultant for R.J. Reynolds tobacco company beginning in 1978, so was well-versed in the art of Manufactured Doubt. According to the excellent new book, Climate Cover-up, written by desmogblog.com co-founder James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore, over a 10-year period Seitz was responsible for handing out $45 million in tobacco company money to researchers who overwhelmingly failed to link tobacco to anything the least bit negative. Seitz received over $900,000 in compensation for his efforts. He later became a founder of the George C. Marshall Institute, and used his old National Academy of Sciences affiliation to lend credibility to his attacks on global warming science until his death in 2008 at the age of ninety-six. It was Seitz who launched the "Oregon Petition", which contains the signatures of more than 34,000 scientists saying global warming is probably natural and not a crisis. The petition is a regular feature of the Manufactured Doubt campaign against human-caused global warming. The petition lists the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" as its parent organization. According to Climate Cover-up, the Institute is a farm shed situated a couple of miles outside of Cave Junction, OR (population 17,000). The Institute lists seven faculty members, two of whom are dead, and has no ongoing research and no students. It publishes creationist-friendly homeschooler curriculums books on surviving nuclear war. The petition was sent to scientists and was accompanied by a 12-page review printed in exactly the same style used for the prestigious journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A letter from Seitz, who is prominently identified as a former National Academy of Sciences president, accompanied the petition and review. Naturally, many recipients took this to be an official National Academy of Sciences communication, and signed the petition as a result. The National Academy issued a statement in April 2008, clarifying that it had not issued the petition, and that its position on global warming was the opposite. The petition contains no contact information for the signers, making it impossible to verify. In its August 2006 issue, Scientific American presented its attempt to verify the petition. They found that the scientists were almost all people with undergraduate degrees, with no record of research and no expertise in climatology. Scientific American contacted a random sample of 26 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to have a Ph.D. in a climate related science. Eleven said they agreed with the petition, six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember the petition, one had died, and five did not respond.

I could say much more about the Manufactured Doubt campaign being waged against the science of climate change and global warming, but it would fill an entire book. In fact, it has, and I recommend reading Climate Cover-up to learn more. The main author, James Hoggan, owns a Canadian public relations firm, and is intimately familiar with how public relations campaigns work. Suffice to say, the Manufactured Doubt campaign against global warming--funded by the richest corporations in world history--is probably the most extensive and expensive such effort ever. We don't really know how much money the fossil fuel industry has pumped into its Manufactured Doubt campaign, since they don't have to tell us. The website exxonsecrets.org estimates that ExxonMobil alone spent $20 million between 1998 - 2007 on the effort. An analysis done by Desmogblog's Kevin Grandia done in January 2009 found that skeptical global warming content on the web had doubled over the past year. Someone is paying for all that content.

Lobbyists, not skeptical scientists
The history of the Manufactured Doubt industry provides clear lessons in evaluating the validity of their attacks on the published peer-reviewed climate change science. One should trust that the think tanks and allied "skeptic" bloggers such as Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That will give information designed to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry. Yes, there are respected scientists with impressive credentials that these think tanks use to voice their views, but these scientists have given up their objectivity and are now working as lobbyists. I don't like to call them skeptics, because all good scientists should be skeptics. Rather, the think tanks scientists are contrarians, bent on discrediting an accepted body of published scientific research for the benefit of the richest and most powerful corporations in history. Virtually none of the "sound science" they are pushing would ever get published in a serious peer-reviewed scientific journal, and indeed the contrarians are not scientific researchers. They are lobbyists. Many of them seem to believe their tactics are justified, since they are fighting a righteous war against eco-freaks determined to trash the economy.

I will give a small amount of credit to some of their work, however. I have at times picked up some useful information from the contrarians, and have used it to temper my blogs to make them more balanced. For example, I no longer rely just on the National Climatic Data Center for my monthly climate summaries, but instead look at data from NASA and the UK HADCRU source as well. When the Hurricane Season of 2005 brought unfounded claims that global warming was to blame for Hurricane Katrina, and a rather flawed paper by researchers at Georgia Tech showing a large increase in global Category 4 and 5 hurricanes, I found myself agreeing with the contrarians' analysis of the matter, and my blogs at the time reflected this.

The contrarians and the hacked CRU emails
A hacker broke into an email server at the Climate Research Unit of the UK's University of East Anglia last week and posted ten years worth of private email exchanges between leading scientists who've published research linking humans to climate change. Naturally, the contrarians have seized upon this golden opportunity, and are working hard to discredit several of these scientists. You'll hear claims by some contrarians that the emails discovered invalidate the whole theory of human-caused global warming. Well, all I can say is, consider the source. We can trust the contrarians to say whatever is in the best interests of the fossil fuel industry. What I see when I read the various stolen emails and explanations posted at Realclimate.org is scientists acting as scientists--pursuing the truth. I can see no clear evidence that calls into question the scientific validity of the research done by the scientists victimized by the stolen emails. There is no sign of a conspiracy to alter data to fit a pre-conceived ideological view. Rather, I see dedicated scientists attempting to make the truth known in face of what is probably the world's most pervasive and best-funded disinformation campaign against science in history. Even if every bit of mud slung at these scientists were true, the body of scientific work supporting the theory of human-caused climate change--which spans hundreds of thousands of scientific papers written by tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of different scientific disciplines--is too vast to be budged by the flaws in the works of the three or four scientists being subject to the fiercest attacks.

Exaggerated claims by environmentalists
Climate change contrarians regularly complain about false and misleading claims made by ideologically-driven environmental groups regarding climate change, and the heavy lobbying these groups do to influence public opinion. Such efforts confuse the real science and make climate change seem more dangerous than it really is, the contrarians argue. To some extent, these concerns are valid. In particular, environmentalists are too quick to blame any perceived increase in hurricane activity on climate change, when such a link has yet to be proven. While Al Gore's movie mostly had good science, I thought he botched the treatment of hurricanes as well, and the movie looked too much like a campaign ad. In general, environmental groups present better science than the think tanks do, but you're still better off getting your climate information directly from the scientists doing the research, via the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Another good source is Bob Henson's Rough Guide to Climate Change, aimed at people with high-school level science backgrounds.

Let's look at the amount of money being spent on lobbying efforts by the fossil fuel industry compared to environmental groups to see their relative influence. According to Center for Public Integrity, there are currently 2,663 climate change lobbyists working on Capitol Hill. That's five lobbyists for every member of Congress. Climate lobbyists working for major industries outnumber those working for environmental, health, and alternative energy groups by more than seven to one. For the second quarter of 2009, here is a list compiled by the Center for Public Integrity of all the oil, gas, and coal mining groups that spent more than $100,000 on lobbying (this includes all lobbying, not just climate change lobbying):

Chevron $6,485,000
Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
BP America $4,270,000
ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
Shell Oil Company $950,000
Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
Williams Companies $920,000
Flint Hills Resources $820,000
Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
National Mining Association $770,000
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
Devon Energy $695,000
Sunoco $585,000
Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
Peabody Energy $420,000
Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
America's Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
El Paso Corporation $261,000
Spectra Energy $279,000
National Propane Gas Association $242,000
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
Nexen, Inc $230,000
Denbury Resources $200,000
Nisource, Inc $180,000
Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
Tesoro Companies $119,000

Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:

Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500
Nature Conservancy $650,000
Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000
National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000
Sierra Club $120,000
Defenders of Wildlife $120,000
Environmental Defense Fund $100,000

If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects both sets of numbers. The numbers don't even include lobbying money from other industries lobbying against climate change, such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.

Corporate profits vs. corporate social responsibility
I'm sure I've left the impression that I disapprove of what the Manufactured Doubt industry is doing. On the contrary, I believe that for the most part, the corporations involved have little choice under the law but to protect their profits by pursuing Manufactured Doubt campaigns, as long as they are legal. The law in all 50 U.S. states has a provision similar to Maine's section 716, "The directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interest of the corporation and of the shareholders". There is no clause at the end that adds, "...but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public safety, the communities in which the corporation operates, or the dignity of employees". The law makes a company's board of directors legally liable for "breach of fiduciary responsibility" if they knowingly manage a company in a way that reduces profits. Shareholders can and have sued companies for being overly socially responsible, and not paying enough attention to the bottom line. We can reward corporations that are managed in a socially responsible way with our business and give them incentives to act thusly, but there are limits to how far Corporate Socially Responsibility (CSR) can go. For example, car manufacturer Henry Ford was successfully sued by stockholders in 1919 for raising the minimum wage of his workers to $5 per day. The courts declared that, while Ford's humanitarian sentiments about his employees were nice, his business existed to make profits for its stockholders.

So, what is needed is a fundamental change to the laws regarding the purpose of a corporation, or new regulations forcing corporations to limit Manufactured Doubt campaigns. Legislation has been introduced in Minnesota to create a new section of law for an alternative kind of corporation, the SR (Socially Responsible) corporation, but it would be a long uphill battle to get such legislation passed in all 50 states. Increased regulation limiting Manufactured Doubt campaigns is possible to do for drugs and hazardous chemicals--Doubt is Their Product has some excellent suggestions on that, with the first principle being, "use the best science available; do not demand certainty where it does not and cannot exist". However, I think such legislation would be difficult to implement for environmental crises such as global warming. In the end, we're stuck with the current system, forced to make critical decisions affecting all of humanity in the face of the Frankenstein monster our corporate system of law has created--the most vigorous and well-funded disinformation campaign against science ever conducted.

Have a great Thanksgiving, everyone, and I'll be back Monday--the last day of hurricane season--with a review of the hurricane season of 2009.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 450 - 400

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37Blog Index

450. xcool
hi matt
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
449. hercj
Dr. Masters, I am sadly disappointed in you. This entire Man Made Global Warming issue is and has been a fraud. In my opinion it is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind. The Crown Princes of this fraud have now been laid bare for all to see. The science community as a whole has one chance to redeem itself. Stand and call for an outright COMPLETE investigation. These people have CONTINUALLY hidden their data from peer review. They have ducked debate. They demand that wealthy nations give up their wealth and their sovereignty in the name of saving the planet. I have battled these charlatans for the past 5 years. I have gone to sleep each night in the greatest nation in the history of man wondering if we would be destroyed by a hoax. My friend and yours NOAA scientist Chris Landsea walked off the IPCC because he knew when he saw the data this was wrong. My argument is NOT with anyone on this blog. My challenge is to you Dr. Masters. Stand and DEMAND and investigation to save science as a whole. This entire movement from the very beginning was the new home for displaced communists and socialists, I know you are not one. Help me restore the name of science. If you and people like you fail to act the credibility of science will be lost for the next generation. Science should NEVER be mixed up with political movements and that was the very first tip that something was wrong here. Some of us like Chris Landsea and Roy Spencer recognized this from the very beginning. The time to act is now Dr. Masters, science needs you and many more to stand up for it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hey TD. Purdue's looking good in hoops.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
hey guys (:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Skyepony, I respect your opinion and would appreciate your comments.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Although, it was a good 25min.

Skye - any comments?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Darn. Sorry everyone. Just saw everyone is talking weather.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Even if warming, is warming bad?

Jurassic was warmer and more CO2. And, yes, higher temps than the IPCC worst case scenario.

Jurassic was about 10c warmer than now and CO2 was between 1000ppm on the low end to 2000ppm on the high end during the period. Last time I checked we were at 384ppm.

Maybe it's just me, but Jurassic seems like it was extremely friendly to all life.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
442. Skyepony (Mod)
Nida


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
00Z GFS still showing a massive squall line cutting through Florida. This is something to eye on the next few days, with el nino, you add in strong jet dipping south, warm air and cold air colliding, you got a major problem.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
& Happy Turkey Day to all, and to all, a good night!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting leef23sk:
re posts 431/432/ Barefoot, you, and Xyrus express it 100%,"don't follow leaders,....."& etc.-thanx, leef


I liked #431 enough that I reposted it in the header of my Blog (with permission of course) :)
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26516
re posts 431/432/ Barefoot, you, and Xyrus express it 100%,"don't follow leaders,....."& etc.-thanx, leef
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hi, Taz, thanks and have a happy turkey day.

Add-on: I agree that #431 is excellent.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
i have save this from this AM


Raw T # from this AM



UW – CIMSS
ADVANCED DVORAK TECHNIQUE
ADT-Version 8.1.1
Tropical Cyclone Intensity Algorithm

—– Current Analysis —–
Date : 25 NOV 2009 Time : 150100 UTC
Lat : 13:15:09 N Lon : 141:38:29 E

CI# /Pressure/ Vmax
7.7 / 873.9mb/161.0kt

Final T# Adj T# Raw T#
7.6 7.9 7.9



they where all most 8.0 the olny other storm i can re call haveing that kind of # was that M storm



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Some of us multi-task, and were and are still watching the typhoon. Anyone who checked this morning's and some later posts would see that.

You should of course feel free to share your analysis. If you share in a civil way, 10 to 1 someone will respond and share back.

And that garbage will make alternative fuels some day soon.

"Judge not" etc. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
One of the strongest typhoons ever was occurring this morning. Instead of analysis on how this typhoon compared to other powerful typhoons, we get this garbage.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This is worth a read and was posted prior. It is important to understand the relevance of the hockey stick graph.

Tree ring data
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
Quoting Barefootontherocks:



357. I see your response to my post.

Well, Hello.
First, I am not a scientist, but please do not call me an "idiot skeptic." Not that you were doing so. It was hard to tell from your post. I am schooled in the sciences. I understand enough about data and statistics to understand experiment, method and conclusion in a scientific presentation. I observe life from all angles-with an open mind.

No question the atmosphere is warming. Puget Sound northward was solid ice not that long ago-just 15,000 years. Nature changed that. I have watched major glaciers in Alaska retreat over the past thirty years. Not by observation from a satellite, but with my own eyes. Yes, Earth is warming.

No question mankind contributes to warming. Show me a paper or papers that separate(s) man-caused and natural global warming over the past two hundred years, and I will read.

No question mankind could be kinder to Mother Earth.

No question mankind views its own biology as different from that of other animals and plant life. Yet chances are good, if it's left up to nature, mankind will face extinction in one way or another. Will science save mankind in time? I do not know.

No question the timing of the now infamous email leak had to do with Copenhagen.

No question someone's got some explaining to do-on both sides-the hackers and the hackees. We'll see if that happens.

Beyond that, I will continue to keep an open mind, a "healthy" skepticism, on AGW vs. Nature. And I will think on my own and question everything related not only to this subject but to life in general. See, that's my nature. That's part of who I am.


Bravo.. That is a far better description of how I think about this whole thing, then I could have written myself.

Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26516
Quoting Xyrus:


There's being a thinking skeptic, i.e. someone who has reviewed the science and comes away with questions and criticisms. Then there's being a clueless idiot "skeptic" who has no idea about the science and doesn't want to and is governed by their own truthiness on the matter.

The thinking skeptic is very worthwhile to have around and should be encouraged to engage in the scientific debate. They should be writing papers for respected peer-reviewed journals. They should be contributing to the IPCC report.

Unfortunately, the clueless idiot skeptics, the "it done be 30 degrees in my backyard, ain't no warmin'" skeptics, vastly outnumber the thinking skeptics. The idiot skeptics have made it so that the thinking skeptics have a MUCH more difficult time being heard. From the skeptic side, there is an incredibly low signal-to-noise ratio.

Thinking skeptics don't point to a single error in a large data set and scream all of the climate research is a hoax (thanks Steve McIntyre). Thinking skeptics perform research like any other scientist.

I agree with the current body of scientific research on the matter. I have no problems with thinking skeptics either ( I happen to work with one and the scientific debates are interesting). But the idiot skeptics have done nothing but screw everything up by taking the focus of the science.

By the way, this also applies to the clueless idiot supporters, the "it dun got to 'undred degrees, its teh global warmin'" supporters.

~X~



357. I see your response to my post.

Well, Hello.

First, I am not a scientist, but please do not call me an "idiot skeptic." Not that you were doing so. It was hard to tell from your post. I am schooled in the sciences. I understand enough about data and statistics to understand experiment, method and conclusion in a scientific presentation. I observe life from all angles-with an open mind.

No question the atmosphere is warming. Puget Sound northward was solid ice not that long ago-just 15,000 years. Nature changed that. I have watched major glaciers in Alaska retreat over the past thirty years. Not by observation from a satellite, but with my own eyes. Yes, Earth is warming.

No question mankind contributes to warming. Show me a paper or papers that separate(s) man-caused and natural global warming over the past two hundred years, and I will read.

No question mankind could be kinder to Mother Earth.

No question mankind views its own biology as different from that of other animals and plant life. Yet chances are good, if it's left up to nature, mankind will face extinction in one way or another. Will science save mankind in time? I do not know.

No question the timing of the now infamous email leak had to do with Copenhagen.

No question someone's got some explaining to do-on both sides-the hackers and the hackees. We'll see if that happens.

Beyond that, I will continue to keep an open mind, a "healthy" skepticism, on AGW vs. Nature. And I will think on my own and question everything related not only to this subject but to life in general. See, that's my nature. That's part of who I am.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


AOI

AOI

AOI

AOI

Humor in Comments
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26516
"The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy"

I must admit, It was not the unbiased scientific opinion I expected to see.
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26516
Quoting AwakeInMaryland:
417. Eyes, I'm no scientist, but I am pragmatic. I'd really like to see algae-as-fuel, or garbage, or chicken-poop, for that matter become viable, cost-effective alternatives. And I don't care if they're a little more expensive if they're viable and get us off foreign fossil fuels.

Found the site I wanted to send you.
Please be aware that I don't know "the politics" of the Enviornmental Working Group or if they have an agenda other than safety. You won't like what you see re hair dyes. Please remember that hair is dead past the scalp (don't let the hair industry fool you).
All I can suggest is that your wife (and I) don't rub it into the scalp!

Skin Deep: Cosmetic Safety Database
The Environmental Working Group's searchable database of toxic ingredients in cosmetic and personal care products.
www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/
Cosmetics Database
Appreciate it..Just another bag of goods to sell to the female public...Younger, better, sexier
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting presslord:
It's poetry in motion
She turned her tender eyes to me
As deep as any ocean
As sweet as any harmony
Ok I am with you, Been there done that....When all else fails on a vessal and the need for food is great and the cook is female.......Poetry and a prayer....Good luck!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
417. Eyes, I'm no scientist, but I am pragmatic. I'd really like to see algae-as-fuel, or garbage, or chicken-poop, for that matter become viable, cost-effective alternatives. And I don't care if they're a little more expensive if they're viable and get us off foreign fossil fuels.

Found the site I wanted to send you.
Please be aware that I don't know "the politics" of the Enviornmental Working Group or if they have an agenda other than safety. You won't like what you see re hair dyes. Please remember that hair is dead past the scalp (don't let the hair industry fool you).
All I can suggest is that your wife (and I) don't rub it into the scalp!

Skin Deep: Cosmetic Safety Database
The Environmental Working Group's searchable database of toxic ingredients in cosmetic and personal care products.
www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/
Cosmetics Database
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
You better stop there Press.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It's poetry in motion
She turned her tender eyes to me
As deep as any ocean
As sweet as any harmony
Member Since: August 13, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 10492
I really enjoy this blog, so I am going to say this one more time, google MIT breakthrough on generating hydrogen through a process similar to what plants do using photovoltaic/hydrolysis method. This has a great possibility of rendering all these arguments moot. Thank God for science.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting presslord:
well...we have a pretty good oven...but will probably hit a restaurant tomorrow....the cook seems to be on strike...she should be flogged...
Good luck with that. I attempted to keel haul a cook once...won't go into the results lest to say I no longer have the keel or the boat the keel was attached too.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
421. xcool









Member Since: Posts: Comments:
well...we have a pretty good oven...but will probably hit a restaurant tomorrow....the cook seems to be on strike...she should be flogged...
Member Since: August 13, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 10492
Quoting presslord:
Greetings...and Happy Thanksgiving...from the s/v Black Swan II
Last time I was on one of those it did not have an oven big enough to hold a Turkey
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
418. xcool
cold weeking in n.o
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting eyesontheweather:
I understand what you are say but I do not see this argument... The mother of invention is always the need of an item. Fosil fuels are being depleted...The writing is definatly on the wall... Now if I am a business owner and my supply is running out I seek something of value to replace it. What is going to happen in the not to distant future is one of the big guys are going to go after this and make a pocketfull. untill then the sheep are just going to keep womdering around
If I may add an example...Henry Ford did not invent the automobile...It was thought to be a riduculous concept..one with no need. People actually thought it would kill them.....Now, here we are in need of alternative energy, some think it is because of GW. But what is very evident is that we are sending incredible, mind boggling amounts of money over seas (if your household was sending more money out than what you were taking in) Again I say look at what brazil did in thr 70's when they were hit with the oil embargo
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting latitude25:
BREAKING: NZ's NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking

Hey, lat! Long time no see.

You saw that NZ data report, too, I see. Weird that none of the stations used for the "average" temperature even hint at the final product...somewhat like the Arctic report card temps and all of the surface stations ringing the Arctic.

For some reason, calculating a simple average is not something the proponents seem to be capable of...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Greetings...and Happy Thanksgiving...from the s/v Black Swan II
Member Since: August 13, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 10492
Quoting presslord:
Jeff Masters is an especially credible voice on this...as his income and wealth are not dependent upon him favoring a particular view...
Hello Press.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Anyways, i'm out. gotta go to work. catch ya's all later. Happy Thanks Giving all.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting gordydunnot:
405 just remember you are asking a lot of people to give up there vested interest, while losing money never happened, not going to start now.
I understand what you are say but I do not see this argument... The mother of invention is always the need of an item. Fosil fuels are being depleted...The writing is definatly on the wall... Now if I am a business owner and my supply is running out I seek something of value to replace it. What is going to happen in the not to distant future is one of the big guys are going to go after this and make a pocketfull. untill then the sheep are just going to keep womdering around
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Jeff Masters is an especially credible voice on this...as his income and wealth are not dependent upon him favoring a particular view...
Member Since: August 13, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 10492
Quoting AwakeInMaryland:

I could hardly swallow my own spit reading that.
Yet another disaster of biblical proportions.


wind 80kts, gusts 115kts, maybe Monday hit.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I really hate it when someone insults my intelligence!

Don't blow smoke up my..eerr...turkey!

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Remember, thanksgiving is a prayer of thanks...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
405 just remember you are asking a lot of people to give up there vested interest, while losing money never happened, not going to start now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AwakeInMaryland:


Sorry 'bout double post.

G'night Eyes! I've done a little research on skin/health products -- will share a good site another time or "WU mail" you. It is a bit troubling...
Thank you, you are a charm!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:

the Islands of Iwo-Jima are in its path.

I could hardly swallow my own spit reading that.
Yet another disaster of biblical proportions.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting chawk:
Dr.Masters, I have relied on your weather blog for years and find your forcast discussions to be very well thought out and accurate, however I think you are using the "manufactured doubt industry" story to cast doubt on the validity of the covered conflicting information discovered by the hackers. Politicians are not credible but Scientist are supposed to be not only credible but also factual. I'm not a scientist and I do not know enough about Global Warming to make a pitch either way. What I do know is that Several very respected scientist documented politically motivated decisions to alter or withold data. I already doubted most politicians (both parties) Now I have to doubt a group of professionals I once considered the most reliable. If it is not sound honest judgement, do not write it in an email, do not think it, and do not share it. I hope there can one day be an open to the world think tank comprised of reputable scientist on both sides of this issue so the worlds laymen can see an honest effort to agree on whether there is a man made problem or not. Scientist need to stay out of politics and vs versa.
Assume everyone is telling the truth to the best of their knowledge, assume GW has some ligitamacy, now what? I say throw it all out the window and error on the side of caution...and matter of fact we could re-energize an entire nation with a self sufficiant energy policy that happens...(happens) to be be using renewable energy and keeping the money at home
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Chawk it up to experience. Sometimes I am so disillusioned with the ones I love.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AwakeInMaryland:

the Islands of Iwo-Jima are in its path.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AwakeInMaryland:
(re Aussie's post) So perfect...and so terrible.
Please tell me the perfect monster typhoon isn't going to hit anything -- a big prayer of Thanksgiving and gratitude should be sent up if that were so.


Sorry 'bout double post.

G'night Eyes! I've done a little research on skin/health products -- will share a good site another time or "WU mail" you. It is a bit troubling...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
So perfect...and so terrible.
Please tell me the perfect monster typhoon isn't going to hit anything -- a big prayer of Thanksgiving and gratitude should be sent up if that were so.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 450 - 400

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Overcast
43 °F
Overcast

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Carrot Nose in Danger
Deep Snow in Brookline, MA
Sunset at Fort DeSoto
New Years Day Sunset in Death Valley