The stifling of scientific dissent on the issue of global warming is not limited to the Climategate story.
The stifling of scientific dissent on the issue of global warming is not limited to the Climategate story. Last month I blogged about how American Geophysical Union scientists Willie Soon and David Legates, both realists on climate change, had a planned alarmism rebuttal session at AGU's annual meeting suddenly yanked away from them under suspicious circumstances.
Now there's conflict within the American Physical Society over its official position on the issue, as CBS News's excellent blogger (on climate reporting, at least) Declan McCullagh reports:
The scientist who will head the American Physical Society's review of its 2007 statement calling for immediate reductions of carbon dioxide is Princeton's Robert Socolow, a prominent supporter of the link between CO2 and global warming who has warned of possible "catastrophic consequences" of climate change.
Socolow's research institute at Princeton has received well over $20 million in grants dealing with climate change and carbon reduction, plus an additional $2 million a year from BP and still more from the federal government. In an interview published by Princeton's public relations office, Socolow called CO2 a "climate problem" that governments need to address.
"It is Socolow whose entire research funding stream, well over a million dollars a year, depends on continued alarm over global warming," says William Happer, a fellow Princeton University professor and head of the Happer physics lab who has raised the question of a conflict of interest. The reason: the ostensibly neutral person charged with evaluating a statement endorsing man-made global warming is a leading proponent of precisely that theory whose funding is tied to that theory.
It's amazing how we keep finding these alarmist scientists who are funded by big oil. And it's also amazing the effect that Climategate has had on media organizations: debates on climate science are breaking out all over the cable news networks.
Pingback| 12.11.09 @ 12:06AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Quashing Dissent Not Li links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
a dood| 12.11.09 @ 12:39AM
I think the networks are getting a sense that there might be some good money in climate debates. A lotta people want to know what's going on.
samulethan| 12.11.09 @ 6:48AM
I think that site is very good for us.....so read carefully now....
http://ezinearticles.com/?Acai.....id=3381692
martin j smith| 12.11.09 @ 7:52AM
Its about a lot of money--period--and power--another period. Since the Opposition Party in our Government such as it is) is the Republican Party--it is their responsibility to raise hell about it and demand--not ask- for thorough investigations. Will they ? Meanwhile-back at the ranch the bloggosphere should continue to deluge with information about this most horrendous blow to truth in our time.
John| 12.11.09 @ 11:43AM
Can't help but remember how the mob was funding those against allowing Altanic City to have casinos in the seventies. These groups had no idea where the money was really coming from.
No suprise big oil would fund groups that in the end actually raised their profits.
DaveL| 12.11.09 @ 4:35PM
You may be interested in this video showing the relationship between the mainstream media and carbon trading and energy companies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bdneX1djD0
Pingback| 12.12.09 @ 3:40AM
Towards A Well Rounded Lifestyle Defining Chinese Medicine | Alternative Medicine Hea links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
racking| 1.7.10 @ 12:14AM
http://www.racking-shelving.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com