Speaking of global warming, I received this e-mail yesterday:
Great Spirits Seminar Series
presents
presents
S. Fred Singer, PhD
1500-Year Natural Cycle or Disaster Of Our Own Doing?
A look at the science and politics of global warming
With Opening Remarks from William R. Sayre, Economist, formerly with the Federal Reserve
March 28, 2007
7 p.m.
University of Vermont
Ira Allen Chapel
7 p.m.
University of Vermont
Ira Allen Chapel
Are we to blame for a changing climate? And if so, is there anything we can do that will make a difference? Professor Singer, a distinguished and decorated scientist, shares his 60 years of experience in the field of atmospheric physics and climatology in addressing those questions plus:
- The science of climate change
- How the scientific process works
- The politics of climate change, including the suppression of work outside “the learned consensus”
- Why some politicians, some fundraising groups and some corporations need certain conclusions
- Moving forward: Who to believe and what to do
March 17th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.
also:
Singer serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of The Cato Institute which receives large grants from Exxon Moble
Singer works for the “National Center for Policy Analysis” which is funded by Exxon Moble
Singer worked for the The Frontiers of Freedom organization, which receives over $250,000 from Exxon Moble each year.
You really should be more honest, Charity.
March 17th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
“You really should be more honest, Charity.”
She said that this information came from an e-mail. This looks like an announcement. Probably just a cut and paste. What is she being dishonest about?
March 17th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Oh, so she didn’t check the guy out before she started promoting him?
March 17th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Oh my goodness, anonymous 5:56 (and presumably 1:31). I said that I received that in an e-mail and as an FYI (the title of the post) I was passing it along. Gimme a break! If you are reading the post, I assume you can google the guy yourself.
This is a conservative blog, ergo, I have conservative readers and I wanted to pass the info along.
March 17th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
You wanted to pass part of the info along.
Not the info about this guy being paid for by Exxon Moble.
You are willing to concede that he’s paid by Exxon Moble, I assume??
March 17th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Not being Dr. Singer, or his banker, I cannot say who he has been paid by. I did read that same thing when I Googled the guy myself. I think it is still worth mentioning that this talk is going on.
I also think it is worth attending. But maybe that is because I am on the take from Exxon Mobile, too.
Personally, I don’t automatically discredit him based on who donates money to organizations he works for. Obviously, he’s not going to get money from groups that want a different conclusion than he is giving.
March 17th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
There’s no question about global warming. I immediately dismiss anything that questions it. I never even bother to read it. Obey Al Gore.
March 18th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
It would seem to me that just the part about
“How the scientific process works”
Would be useful to the true believers of Anthropogenic Warming
So go, you might learn something…
March 18th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Everyone from the flat earth society of Vermont will be there.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Anon said, “You wanted to pass part of the info along.”
No, I passed the e-mail announcement along. Actually, I copied and pasted it as is. People can look into the guy themselves if they want to know more.
It was an FYI.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
So, Charity I presume then if a “scientist” proved that it was highly dangerous to continue to eat meat and that it shortens your life expectancy by an average of 20 years and he/she was paid by PETA you would not dismiss the study before reading all the relevant information? If you even think of saying you would read a 1,000 page report you are a liar. You would in fact dismiss it immediately based solely on who paid to have it done. As I believe you should! The point is when one’s sole mission is to either continue selling one specific commodity (oil) or to stop one specific habit (eating meat) their work’s credibility is and should be called into question. Exxon/Mobile has stated that their strategy is not to disprove Global Warming, becasue they can’t, it is to create doubt about Global Warming so that any necessary steps to curtail it are delayed. When you and the rest of your “free market” ideologues buy into to this crap you do nothing but prolong the implementation of the action that is necessary to save our planet only leading to a sicker eco-system and community for your kids to grow up in. If we all continue to act as you do your kid’s generation will the first in American history to have it worse instead of better then their parents. Congratulations Exxon/Mobile your strategy is brilliant especially when implemented on an apathetic and ignorant society that cares more about self then collective good.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
A quick glance around here will show Charity usually doesn’t bother checking up on whether the person or operation she’s promoting is credible or is funded by people who have the most to lose as long as it confirms her position, or even if what she’s promoting is even factually correct. And I guess she assumes most conservatives aren’t concerned either, although I don’t think that’s true.
She doesn’t think that the fact that the guy gets money from Big Oil is worth mentioning or influences his position in anyway, yet much of the global warming news out there can easily be discarded simply because Al Gore has an ‘agenda’. And maybe by not mentioning it, she makes the assumption that other cons reading this are as uncritical as she is. Not true.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Oh my! Are you guys complete morons, or do you just play that role on my blog comments? I said I copied and pasted the darn thing from a fricking e-mail – as written – as an FYI.
Get a clue.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Hey if nothing else you have to love the logic she applies to the situation. Just imagine the next time you have a big report due for your boss just have a co-worker email you his take on the situation and then cut and paste it into your report. Then when it is completely wrong you can just say it’s not my fault I cut and pasted it you moron. Or when your kid has a school report due on evolution just have them go to the web to cut and paste it into his report and let them know its fine and no longer their responsibility because they cut and paste it and once you do that you are in the clear regardless if its right or wrong or even a flat out lie. She kind of falls into the same camp as Hillary on this one. The whole if knew then what I know now I would not have voted for the war. It’s the same BS don’t take responsibility for your actions just blame someone or something else and everything is fine and dandy. Kind of reminds of Bush as well how he refuses to take responsibility for this mess and just keeps on telling us how dumb we are and that were not listening to him. Well charity I have to hand it to you, you were able to take all the worst qualities of George Bush and Hillary Clinton and roll them into one disgusting personality trait. You are the moron because you have no freakin clue what personal responsibility is and as a conservative whose mantra is screw the poor people they should get a job and be responsible for themselves there could be no more repugnant trait then hypocrisy!!!
March 19th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
You seriously need to get a life.
“If I knew then what I know now,” I would still have posted this. It was for information for my blog readers. A talk is happening in Burlington. I received an e-mail about it. I passed along the info.
I did not take the time include a bio of the guy. I happen to have a life. It was Saturday morning and I have a family. And I give my readers more credit than that. They can handle the research on their own. Even someone as out of touch with reality as yourself was up to that task.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
No, Charity, it’s jut that the way you post things uncritically is like the FOX news approach of just reporting things straight from the White House as if they were fact. It’s like you assume we’re all morons, in that you put out questionable information as if it’s valid or above reproach, but it’s always someone else that has to do the homework to point out that it’s more than often not.
Why would you want to inform your readers, whether lib or con, about things that are on shaky or erroneous factual ground? Do you really have that much contempt for us?
For example, considering that most intelligent people, regardless of where they are on the global warming thing, might not consider a speaker on Big Oil’s payroll to be the best, uncompromised person to be addressing the issue. You’re doing exactly what FOX and Bushco do in making the (often correct) assumption that your readers are too stupid and blinded by their biases to be concerned about the truth or integrity of what you’re telling them, because facts be damned if it confirms your alternate-universe reality.
For those of you that do care about conflicts of interests and such, here’s the poop.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Yeah, get right over to “Five Before Chaos” and read the blog of the guy who just said that my blog readers are too stupid to use Google!
March 19th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
I take it you’re going to blow it off, because, obviously, the fact that the man has made a career out of shilling for big tobacco and oil has no bearing on his credibility or integrity, right.
I never said that your readers are stupid, Charity, I merely questioned why you would put out questionable information just to fit your agenda. How Rovelike of you. If anything, you’re assuming your readers are too stupid to use the Google, hence you put out information easily disproven with about 5 minutes worth of reading, almost daily, lately. I don’t know how you expect people to take you seriously when you do that. It’s your blog, you are free to do what you want, I’m not implying otherwise. Just don’t act all defensive when people want to draw attention to what you’re doing.
Now, be nice. I don’t want us to sit on opposite sides of the table at the Blogger BBQ.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Be sure and let me know what can be “disproven” in this post. Last time I read it, it looked like I was posting the topic of a talk – the who, what when, and where. Show me the factual inaccuracies there.
You know, I have a lot of conservative readers. Most people who read this blog do not comment. Some people might be interested in attending this, so I passed along the info.
Go ahead and read more into that if you want, but I think people know that I am more of a straight shooter than that.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:54 am
Here is one conservative reader who think that j.d. and anonyomous are full of crap. You two whine about how any scientist who doesn’t buy human-caused global warming is in the pockets of “Big Oil”. Have you not noticed that it is the scientists who insist that it is we humans who are causing global warming that recieve the lion’s share of the research funding, especially from our own government? Do you not also see a conflict of interest there either?
Hey j.d., you never answered my question at Buckhorn Road: What caused the global warming that melted the glacier that formed Yosemite Valley?
March 21st, 2007 at 11:24 am
Chanman, I’m not a scientist, I don’t have the answer.
No, I don’t see a conflict of interest in scientists getting funding from the government. It’s always been that way. Your argument falls apart even further, considering it is the position of our current government to deny the problem exists in the first place, and then they even get caught manipulating the reports. WE’re not all ‘black helicopters are coming’ nutjobs who think the gov’t is inherently evil. And many of the policies of the gov’t in giving a free hand to the industries have help contribute to the problem, so your argument is about as credible as Bush saying ‘we’re winning in Iraq’.
What it really comes down here, is most of you cons don’t give two shits about the science, it’s merely a smokescreen. All you really care about is environmental restrictions and regulations on commerce and behavior. Money and freedom from any accountability your fellow humans are your real gods.
So, once again, why are you people unable to produce a single scientist who’s not on the take from Big Oil? And even the ones that are denying it are a tiny minority.
March 21st, 2007 at 9:46 pm
I’m going. Sounds interesting. Dr. Singer is, after all, an atmospheric physicist (professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia). That’s more than Al Gore can say.
Thanks, Charity, for posting this info. This talk seems not to be widely publicized.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:07 am
My argument falls flat? Let’s look at your logic for a sec. You say the U.S. government is denying global warming is man-made. If that’s true, then why are all they “denier” scientist having to go to the oil companies for funding as you claim? Are you kidding? Old G.W. was out there the other day getting on board the global warming train. And how about that Dr. Hansen from NASA? He is a high priest from the church of global warming, and he has received, what, about $250,000 in research funds.
Say what you like about the partiality of the scientists who debunk man-made global warming; the scientists on your side can be painted as being just as tainted.
Try again j.d.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Interesting, there seems to be many more of ‘us’ than ‘them’. And Bush has done his best to silence Hansen, something else well documented. How does the government ‘benefit’ from the truth of global warming? It’s certainly not going to make their lives any easier.
Once again, the government has ALWAYS funded scientists… now the government is trying to silence those scientists because their results don’t jibe with the ‘pander to the corporations at all costs’ people who are Bush’s biggest supporters. And the only reason Bush is ‘coming around’ is because maybe it’s one less thing he can look like an idiot about. So please, spare me the line about scientists being tainted. With that line of reasoning, the Russians would still be the only ones in space and America would be about as scientifically dumb as the ones that live in the Bible belt.
You lose. Conservatives will always lose, because your very world view goes against the tide of human nature; one of progress. You’re wrong about global warming. Iraq. Abstinence programs. Trickle-down theory. Intelligent design. The origins of homosexuality. The idea that corporations give one shit about the public interest and will do he right thing if left alone. I could go on for hours here but I’ve got better things to do.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Dear Chanman – to answer your silly question about the Yosemite Glacier how about just use some 5th grade logic. Where is Yosemite Valley? What is the current climate of that valley? What time period did that glacier exist and then eventually melt away? What is the difference between the current climate in Yosemite and the North Pole or Greenland?
to help you out a tiny bit – that Glacier only existed in a time period know as an “ice age” kinda indicates what the planet was going through at the time, don’t ya think? The current climate there is warm even in the winter and yes even before GW. Go check average temps for the valley, it is not and has not been in our lifetime uncommon for it to rain and be warm in the valley in the middle of winter. Yosemite vallley is not and has never really been a wintry place. Finally, ice melting in a place that has always been cold like negative 50 degrees cold is much different then a climate that grows Avacados. I really believe that you so badly want GW to not be real that you people can’t even figure out based on your on logic that issues being raised by the non-believers are just flat out rediculous and yet you convince yourself to believe them, WHY? Given your condition as I described it I have a suggestion for you – go play a game show with Jeff Foxworthy, its right up your ally.
Oh and by the way just waht is it exactly the scientists have to agin by working for the gov’t and bein believers, when they are finished working for the gov’t they can get a nice cushy job with a non-profit enviro group and make 40k a year. Yeah that would be enough for me to lie or conversely when your on the dole for the oil companies you get a corner office with stock options and a minimum of a 6 figure salary. Your right they are the same!!