Nine Out of Ten Top Climate Deniers L...

Nine Out of Ten Top Climate Deniers Linked to ExxonMobil

There are 17 comments on the Triple Pundit story from May 9, 2011, titled Nine Out of Ten Top Climate Deniers Linked to ExxonMobil. In it, Triple Pundit reports that:

Today's story probably won't come as a big surprise to anyone, but in an era where unsubstantiated assertions fly through the news media like raindrops in a hurricane, obscuring the truth to the point of near-invisibility, it's nice when a bright beam of factual research and analysis shines in to cut through the haze.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Triple Pundit.

Northie

Spokane, WA

#1 May 9, 2011
The headline should read, "Nine out of ten climate-science-denying SCIENTISTS linked to ExxonMobil".

Ordinary, climate-denying dumbshits aren't smart enough to wangle an Exxon payoff for repeating the company's lies.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2 May 9, 2011
Linked because they use gasoline? Aren't nine out of ten environmental scientists linked to Greenpeace? What's the difference? Does free speech only work when you are the one speaking?
Gordon

Beijing, China

#3 May 9, 2011
Brian_G wrote:
Linked because they use gasoline? Aren't nine out of ten environmental scientists linked to Greenpeace? What's the difference? Does free speech only work when you are the one speaking?
Stupid analogy. Majority of the experts in this field agree the current warming is due to anthropogenic causes. So all of them are linked to Greenpeace? For starters, does Greenpeace coffers even stretch that far. Moreover, 25000 proxy measurements around the world indicate a rapidly warming world. Are those proxies somehow linked to the political agenda of Greenpeace?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4 May 9, 2011
The Top Ten publishers of the 900 papers that take opposing view think restricting CO2 emissions not the answer. You have no experimental test to prove them wrong, no demonstration or trial to support climate change mitigation. Proxy measurements are fine, indirect. but good enough for government work. Climate always changes, what we need are experimental tests before we implement prototype climate change mitigation.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5 May 9, 2011
Let's not forget the Koch Brothers, they have a right to free speech, just like any other American.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#6 May 9, 2011
Brian_G wrote:
Let's not forget the Koch Brothers, they have a right to free speech, just like any other American.
Of course. Although it was highly illegal until 1987, Exxon and the Kochs can now monopolize paid media to shout down anyone who disagrees with them.
Parorchestia

Christchurch, New Zealand

#7 May 9, 2011
This is rubbish. I know personally many of the rational skeptics in Australasia. Not only are they honest and good scientists, they have no connection to any firm as most are retired and can't be bought by either side.

Skepticism is the hearty and soul of science, so it is right and proper that all the models and evidence be strongly examined since the consequences of getting it wrong, on either side, are horrendous.

To paraphrase an old saying, if you can't stand the cold douche on the fire in the kitchen, then stay out of kitchen and don't cast such wicked aspersions.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#9 May 9, 2011
Parorchestia wrote:
To paraphrase an old saying, if you can't stand the cold douche on the fire in the kitchen, then stay out of kitchen
Yes, when discussing climate scientists who sell out to the energy industry, cold douches do come to mind.
Parorchestia

Christchurch, New Zealand

#10 May 9, 2011
I am DIGITAP wrote:
You're talking to people, Parorchestia, who, rather than update their definition of atmosphere from one a hundred years old and more, prefer "it's like a big, warm, BLANKIE!"
to the actual truth we know, today: the atmosphere's a MILES DEEP, COMPRESSIBLE FLUID, HEAT CONDUCTIVE, FRIGID, IMMERSION BATH held in place around the GLOBE by GRAVITY.
If you ASK these HICKS this QUESTION:
The Atmosphere is most like:
A: a big, warm, BLANKIE
B: a big, warm, GREENHOUSE
C: a MILES DEEP, COMPRESSIBLE FLUID, HEAT CONDUCTIVE, FRIGID, IMMERSION BATH,
their answer is, "A, but A is too COMPLICATED to TALK ABOUT so, B; but not EVER, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, is the ATMOSPHERE, C.
T.H.A.T. is the level of lacking intellect, you are dealing with.
Go ahead: take this test question - I made it up along with the answers: and ask, EVERY WARMER you SEE, which answer they CHOOSE to CHARACTERIZE the ATMOSPHERE.
You'll be astounded at the number of them who are A.M.A.Z.E.D. to hear the Atmosphere isn't MOST like a BIG, WARM, BLANKIE.
The experts I talk to are currently publishing on paleoclimatology and climatology. They do know about conduction, convection and radiation and they also know about Beer's Law! They are not in the pay of any pressure group. They keep an open, mind and exercise skepticism as they should because the consequences of either warmists or anti_AGW proponents being wrong are horrendous.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#11 May 10, 2011
Parorchestia wrote:
<quoted text>
The experts I talk to are currently publishing on paleoclimatology and climatology. They do know about conduction, convection and radiation and they also know about Beer's Law! They are not in the pay of any pressure group. They keep an open, mind and exercise skepticism as they should because the consequences of either warmists or anti_AGW proponents being wrong are horrendous.
Afraid not. If we "warmists" are wrong, the worst that happens is we slightly tax fossil fuels for a time, reducing foreign oil dependency and building a bit of clean power generation, and then we stop. The net cost of that will be near zero.( http://www.grist.org/article/Energy-efficienc... )

On the other hand, if the polluters and their lobbyists are wrong, and we dither while a runaway greenhouse warming spiral takes off as it has in several prehistoric thermal events, then the costs are likely to be in the trillions of dollars and millions of lives, with perhaps 20% of global GDP lost--unless major war breaks out, in which case money will be worth more as tinder than as tender.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review )

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#12 May 10, 2011
Imagine that, a group that promotes ecological matters claims that nearly everyone who disagrees with man made global warming has to be in the pay of Exxon Mobil.

It sounds like when you cannot disprove the facts your are left with attacking those who proved you wrong. Of course the facts remain the facts and history has already seen this exact same tactic used before by thise exact same group. Of course last time they gave it up to protest Nam and promote flower power.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#13 May 10, 2011
N. you've been taxing fossil fuels and trying to reduce our dependence on foreign fuel for decades, when will you admit it's failure? We import more now than before, because you discourage domestic production and use. You force out oil production, on aesthetic grounds.

Don't cry to us when 9% unemployment, falling dollar, rising gas and food prices and record government spending forces out your team.
Parorchestia

Christchurch, New Zealand

#14 May 10, 2011
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Afraid not. If we "warmists" are wrong, the worst that happens is we slightly tax fossil fuels for a time, reducing foreign oil dependency and building a bit of clean power generation, and then we stop. The net cost of that will be near zero.( http://www.grist.org/article/Energy-efficienc... )
On the other hand, if the polluters and their lobbyists are wrong, and we dither while a runaway greenhouse warming spiral takes off as it has in several prehistoric thermal events, then the costs are likely to be in the trillions of dollars and millions of lives, with perhaps 20% of global GDP lost--unless major war breaks out, in which case money will be worth more as tinder than as tender.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review )
No one I know denies that the globe is warming;the debate is about the extent human activities influence this and how sensitive the climate system is to increases in greenhouse gases. The costs of ETS systems is horrendous and I have seen economic analyses that it is cheaper to mitigate than impose ETS mechanisms. So that is another debate we must have without rancor and based on verifiable facts.
But I find it despicable that ad hominem attacks are made as if they are valid arguments. Shame on you.
Poptech

Riverton, NJ

#15 May 13, 2011
Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?

In an article titled, "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil" from the environmental activist website The Carbon Brief, former Greenpeace "researcher" Christian Hunt failed to do basic research. He made no attempt to contact the scientists he unjustly attacked and instead used biased and corrupt websites like DeSmogBlog to smear them as "linked to" [funded by] ExxonMobil.

To get to the truth, I emailed the scientists mentioned in the article the following questions;

1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

Their responses follow,

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#16 May 14, 2011
Poptech wrote:
Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?
In an article titled, "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil" from the environmental activist website The Carbon Brief, former Greenpeace "researcher" Christian Hunt failed to do basic research. He made no attempt to contact the scientists he unjustly attacked and instead used biased and corrupt websites like DeSmogBlog to smear them as "linked to" [funded by] ExxonMobil.
To get to the truth, I emailed the scientists mentioned in the article the following questions;
1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
4. Please include any additional comment on the article,
Their responses follow,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-...
Brilliant find, proof that alarmism is on shaky ground and will stop at nothing in an attempt to blacken the character of anyone seeking truth who stands in their way.
bronck burger

Bayonne, NJ

#17 May 14, 2011
NEXT will be the cry >>> FOLKS THAT DO NOT TAKE GLOBAL WARMING for REAL ARE RACIST'S. I COULD CARE LESS ABOUT EXXON-MOBIL. I USE SHELL GAS.
Dave Burton

Cary, NC

#18 May 15, 2011
This article is proof that some global warming alarmists will stoop to any depth, even smearing conscientious scientists with lies, to promote their agenda. Thanks, Poptech, for the truth:
http://tinyurl.com/5wvzg8o

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Exxon Mobil Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Judge Declines to Dismiss Suit Against ExxonMobil (May '13) Jun 28 Freefarts 6
News Exxon CEO Makes Fun Of Clean Energy; But What A... May '15 Solarman 1
News Illinois agency says evidence of anti-gay preju... Feb '15 Larry Craig s WC ... 10
News Exxon adds discrimination protections in U.S. f... Feb '15 Gremlin 8
News $45.2 BILLION: Exxon Mobil shatters the U.S. re... (Jan '09) Nov '14 Andarz Abedini 15
News Exxon Mobil Report Fuels Panic on Street (Jul '07) Nov '14 Human at Earth 78
News Exxon Blasts Movement to Divest From Fossil Fuels (Oct '14) Oct '14 Earthling-1 1
More from around the web