Re: [Paddlewise] Following the money, Exxon Exposed

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:08 AM, James Farrelly <JFarrelly5_at_comcast.net>wrote:

>
> You have already made up your mind Mike. Why even consider data?
>
> The age of the Internet. Everyone's enough of an expert to have an opinion
that's just as valid as the opinions of anyone else and a platform from
which to utter it. This, apparently, includes me.

The AGW skeptics obviously consider this a political debate not a scientific
one. AGW is perfect for this because, as Kruger explained, there is no way
to "prove" any of it until it's too late. Paul, who used to do computer
models, is suspicious of computer models. So, for him, there is no use
quoting computer models (which were so useful in designing atomic bombs).
Mike distrusts "government" so anything funded by "government" is
automatically suspect. All their suspicions are bolstered by the scientists
themselves, who are unfortunately human. Being human they frequently also
have their own political agendas and their own human foibles so there are
enough anomalies in the presentations for skeptics to point to them and have
their own "ah ha!" moment. So, some of the scientific debates *are* somewhat
political and when it becomes openly political the skeptics see no reason
not to push the argument farther in that direction.

After all, the liberals started it.

The "destruction" of the "raw data" is, for a skeptic, just another link in
the plot. No single institution or person has the "data" of course. There is
too much of it for any single depository and much of it is in the notebooks
of people who simply recorded it every day for 35 years or so and then,
maybe, published an analysis of that data. Lots of this raw data is
destroyed yearly but now it becomes part of the "plot". And the simple fact
that no single person can understand all the data - even if they had all the
data - means that it's a simple matter to draw opposing conclusions using
whatever data (outdated, out of context or from some blog) available.

I imagine a lot of the environmental scientists are somewhat surprised to
find themselvs part of a liberal plot. But I think it's interesting that
most of the current "debate" (if you can call it that) is  among people who
aren't, themselves, involved in the science. Most of the environmental
scientists I know see this as a side issue and pay little attention to it.

Now, I can see quite easily how corporations can decide to fund studies
determined to confuse the issue. Corporate finagling is, after all, why we
have anti-trust laws. But I have yet to see anything that would cause so
many governments to all behave in exactly the same way. Mike thinks that the
funding is the culprit and that only scientists who are willing to skew
their analysis of their data in the proper way get the money. Mike probably
sees no difference between ExxonMobil subsidizing a "study" and the National
Science Foundation subsidizing a "study". To a skeptic the only difference
is that the NSF money is involved in the vast conspiracy to.... to.....
well, no one has actually said why they want to do it. But whatever it is it
will surely cost us money. And raise taxes.

For me, the humorous part is that apparently studies funded by ExxonMobile,
Chevron, Dow and the like are just going to give us the straight scoop. I
believe that like I believe Marlboro Lights are good for me. And as far as
suspect government money....well, you do realize that the USA subsidizes
ExxonMobile - the world's most profitable corporation - with public money
don't you?

For me it boils down to this. While I have no doubt that money from
ExxonMobil may have strings attached, I can't see why money from the NSF
would have them; especially when the conservatives controlled the process
for 12 years. It seems to me that if Mike is right then government funding
would skew the results one way for a while and then the other way for a
while. And I can't see why money from NSF would influence scientists in
Russia, Chile, Finland and others operating under so many different
political schemes.

I am becoming more convinced every day that the skeptics suspect a vast
world-wide conspiracy because, in the last analysis, that's the way they'd
do it if they had the chance.


Craig Jungers
Moses Lake, WA
www.nwkayaking.net

PS: I didn't kayak today. I'm sick. My wife thinks I'm sick because I
kayaked Sunday.
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************