[LINK] the weather makers
kim.holburn at gmail.com
Mon Apr 9 16:36:51 EST 2007
On 2007/Apr/09, at 2:56 AM, Stewart Fist wrote:
> I understand why activists like Thorpe have had to exaggerate
> fears, and
> paint the science in black-and-white ways in order to raise a
> and force politicians to listen, and pay more than token attention.
> But they've now done that. And this is good.
> I also understand that the big corporations like Exxon and Western
> have paid fake organisations like SEPP with Fred Singer and Patrick
> Michaels, and Steve Milloy of Junk-science.com, to promote a denier's
> viewpoint. And why this was supported by the far right. I probably
> understand more than anyone on this list how this came about,
> because I've
> been researching a book on the corporate corruption of science for
> But these people have now been exposed and with a few exceptions
> they have
> been squashed.
> So this battle has also been won.
Actually I think there is still a lot of money in the big oil fund
for climate change denier's astroturfing. Probably not just big oil
either these days but current US government as well. As one lot are
exposed they move to a new lot. Conspiracy theory or just good sense?
> But there are still a number of good scientists around who don't
> accept that
> evidence exists, in the way that it is so zealously being promoted as
> established fact.
The evidence is getting clearer all the time from many branches of
science. Canaries. There are tens of thousands of canaries,
> People now need to stop fighting and let the real scientific
> questions be
> asked an answered.
People need to stop fighting and start arguing? :-)
> You've got our attention. The money is beginning to flow.
> Now is the time to listen to the opposition instead of denigrating
Yes, I think that is the point. Unfortunately the concentration of
money and power has muddied the situation and I doubt it'll get any
clearer soon. There has been astroturfing, there has been direct and
protracted interference by governments.
> Its the mark of a zealot to keep fighting after the battle is won.
>> This debate is not just about science. Implicit in the sceptics'
>> message is the suggestion that scientists are lying about the role
>> of CO2 in climate change. The impression given is that this is a
>> conspiracy; that climate scientists are deliberately trying to
>> mislead the public, either to affect policy because of their
>> private political motivations or to be more successful in
>> attracting research funding.
> You can reverse this:
> Implicit in Thorpe's message is the suggestion that everyone who has a
> different opinion to him is in the pay of the energy companies. The
> impression given is that this is a conspiracy (in fact he states this
> outright); that climate scientists (on the other side) are
> trying to mislead the public, either to affect policy because of their
> private financial motivations or to be more successful in attracting
> research funding.
> The fact of the matter is that research funds generally flow to
> those in the
> mainstream of current scientific opinion. It has always been that
> way, and
> probably always will be. It pays scientists to either be
> 'conventional' or
> extremely corrupt.
IT Network & Security Consultant
Ph: +39 06 855 4294 M: +39 3494957443
mailto:kim at holburn.net aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request
Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny.
-- Lloyd Biggle, Jr. Analog, Apr 1961
More information about the Link