Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

The story attempts to put the global warming denial-”industry” into a historical context, and tells some good parts of the story, but downplays many of the contributions from Exxon specifically, and the oil industry in general, to conservative think-tanks and so-called scientific research institutes.

The story is about 6 pages long online, and around page 5 is the story of how one global warming denial organization offered $10,000 each to those willing to write stories or opinion pieces opposing the recent findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Peppered throughout are stories of energy industry funders of pseudo-science propaganda, the Global Warming Deniers.

You might wonder how FOX News,
and Powerline,
and conservative talk radio could all be wrong on this.

Well, not that hard to imagine how they’d all take up the cause in defending the sales of carbon fuels. There’s a lot of money in big oil, coal and gas, and economic conservatives tend to defend profits by the old paradigm even when there’s a perceived need for change.

Many economic conservatives are economic alarmists when anyone comes along to question the current economic paradigm. Doesn’t matter if there’s money to be made in the reduction of carbon emissions and the development of alternative fuels. If big oil and coal are going to lose money in the future, the economic conservatives will want to be absolutely sure of the science, and if there’s any way to fund denial till the bitter end, those who listen to the propaganda will keep denying even when many others (not mislead by the propaganda) are quite sure of the GW science.

Two clarifications:

1. The fact that their work is funded by Exxon is significant, but not the major point about Lindzen: The article at the link I provide shows that his thinking isn’t dependable. This, I suspect, is one of the reasons work like his, and similar work of others who are GW skeptics, doesn’t make it into peer-reviewed journals. It’s not that the peer-review process is a tyranny of the majority, where the majority are a bunch of socialist-conspirators or fools. It’s that the thinking of people like Lindzen doesn’t hold up well to the good scrutiny of intelligent peers.

2. Funding from Exxon can’t be trusted so easily as you presume, when the pattern of Exxon’s funding is not to fund a range of unbiased scientific foundations that might come up with somewhat divergent results and have to hash it out in the light of dialog and reason. The pattern of Exxon’s funding is to find organizations that will support the pre-determined conclusions it desires as propaganda, and to fund them. This is why I wouldn’t trust Exxon.

If the pattern of Exxon’s funding showed that it was authentically interested in unbiased research, I’d be glad they were generously supporting such research.

I think Republican Senator Olympia Snowe and others would also be less dismayed about the Exxon funding scandal if that were the case.

But in fact, Republicans like Snowe and MN’s Norm Coleman are expressing grave concern about global warming, and not expressing the sorts of skepticism that the Exxon-funded conservative think-tanks and “research” institutes are churning out.

I came across this account of an encounter with Lindzen, on a blog called “Environmental Economics,” with contributors whose scientific background easily dwarfs yours and mine combined:

http://www.env-econ.net/2006/05/richard_lindzen.html

I tend to think you’re wrong in trusting the scientific judgment of people like Gray, Taylor, Singer and Lindzen….

Please note two things about the piece:

1) It’s not an “article” in the Wall Street Journal, as you say, but instead, it’s listed at the WSJ as “commentary”. This means that it’s the equivalent of the opinion pages. There’s a big difference: If the WSJ prints an article, they do some extensive fact-checking so they can maintain their reputation (or at least they give fact-checking a good try). Most papers, even the WSJ, are not so strict with their commentary columns or OP-ED pieces, which lean more toward opinion, and which are often disputed or rebutted.

2) The second thing to note about William Gray and the Independent Institute (sounds fairly unbiased at first glance, doesn’t it?) is that they were one among about 16 conservative think-tanks or organizations that received some portion of more than 40 million dollars from Exxon. It seems that the Independent Institute received about $70,000. A private research institute simply cannot be credible about its independence or objectivity if it’s receiving big donations from big oil. It has a vested interest in churning out the sort of opinion that the donors like.

I have made this sort of comment on more than two other occasions in response to articles for which you’ve provided links, Tom.

Is Mr. Gray’s opinion about hurricanes and global warming a minority opinion, or is it an opinion that is supported widely by scientists in the field? This is the sort of question that you’re not asking here.

One can’t help but feel you’re being careless, at the very least, by not checking these sorts of things more carefully before posting (what you call “articles,” but which are, instead) opinion pieces from people whose research and writing are subsidized by Exxon or other oil/coal/gas interests. I would ask, very sincerely, Tom, if this habit on your part is a blind spot that needs tending, and if it’s getting in the way of your serving the best interests of your constituents. You seem more habitually interested in passing on positions of a select group of conservatives organizations with serious issues of conflict of interest, instead of being objective in seeking the truth.