[late]

Please provide your evidence that climate realists are kooks living off money from Big Oil.

It's Dark Money filtered through the organisations they own. But it wasn't always that way:

"Why have we waited so long to deal with this crisis? Lots of reasons, from the sheer scale and inertia of our energy systems to the psychology of denial. But the fossil fuel mafia played a big part in it. Thanks in part to Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporting a few years ago by InsideClimate News, we now know that ExxonMobil and Shell and other Big Oil companies knowingly misled the public and their shareholders about the risk that climate change poses to their assets, as well as to the habitability of the planet. In internal memos dating back to the 1970s, Exxon predicted that the effects of fossil fuel pollution could “indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the world’s population).” In 1982, it estimated that the atmosphere would contain 415 parts per million of carbon dioxide in 2019 – a stunningly accurate prediction. As a recent New York Times editorial pointed out, “The parade of horribles foreseen by the company — sea level rise, more intense rain and snow, inundation, hotter temperatures, desertification, agricultural disruption — are now regular features of the nightly news. And it will only get worse.”

But rather than warn the public, Exxon spent over $30 million on climate-denying think tanks and shady researchers to confuse people about the risks of climate change, while doubling down on its mission to pump as much oil out of the ground as quickly as it could."
https://kleanindustries.com/resources/e ... y-with-it/

But that's small change compared with what the Koch alliance spent.

[Pants-of-dog]

Your claim that climate realists are scaring people is objectively false.

Please provide your evidence that climate realists are kooks living off money from Big Oil.

Thought not.

The only climate scientist you have cited in this thread is Dr. Roy Spencer, so we should look at him:

https://www.facingsouth.org/2011/09/cli ... -ties.html

Spencer's Big Oil connections

As a global-warming contrarian with strong climate-science credentials, Roy Spencer is a relative rarity. He earned his doctorate in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981 and went on to serve as a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., where he and Christy received an award for their work monitoring global temperatures with satellites. Spencer became a research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville in 2001.

While his personal website notes that his research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies and not oil companies, he does have a leadership role in groups with financial ties to Big Oil. They include:

* George C. Marshall Institute. Spencer currently serves as a director at the George C. Marshall Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit that receives substantial funding from oil and gas interests -- including Exxon, which has given the group at least $840,000 since 1998, according to Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets.org database. The Marshall Institute used to restrict its funding to private foundations and individual donors, but in the late 1990s, after it began working to cast doubt on global warming, the group made the decision to accept money from corporations and their foundations.

The Marshall Institute's former executive director, Matthew B. Crawford, wrote an essay for the New York Times back in 2009 that accused the group -- which he did not name -- of distorting facts in pursuit of its ideological agenda:


But certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style -- that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.

* Cornwall Alliance. Spencer is a member of the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance, a conservative Christian public-policy group that promotes a free-market approach to environmental stewardship and whose "Resisting the Green Dragon" campaign portrays the climate-protection movement as a sort of false religion. The Cornwall Alliance has close ties to a conservative policy group called the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which has received over $580,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org. Paul Driessen, who played a guiding role in forming the group now known as the Cornwall Alliance, also served as a consultant for ExxonMobil and CFACT, which has also received at least $60,500 from Chevron and $1.28 million from the the foundation of the Scaife family, whose wealth comes in part from Gulf Oil, as Think Progress reports.

* Encounter Books. Spencer is the author of three books critical of mainstream climate science: Climate Confusion, published in 2008, and The Great Global Warming Blunder and The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama's Global Warming Agenda, both released last year. All of those works were published by Encounter Books, which is a project of the conservative nonprofit Encounter for Culture and Education. That group's major funders include the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, which in turn is controlled by one of the owners of Kansas-based Koch Industries, among the world's richest privately held companies with extensive holdings in oil refineries and pipelines. The Kochs have played a critical role in funding climate-denial efforts, contributing $24.9 million to organizations that have worked to cast doubt on mainstream climate science.

* Tech Central Station. Spencer served as a columnist and a member of the science roundtable for Tech Central Station. Until 2006, TCS was run by DCI Group, a lobbying and public-relations firm that has represented ExxonMobil.

So while Spencer may have "never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service," he has certainly served the oil industry's interest in amplifying doubt about climate change and downplaying the scientific consensus that it's real and caused in large part by human activity.

[Truth To Power]

The only climate scientist you have cited in this thread is Dr. Roy Spencer, so we should look at him:

https://www.facingsouth.org/2011/09/cli ... -ties.html

Spencer's Big Oil connections

As a global-warming contrarian with strong climate-science credentials, Roy Spencer is a relative rarity. He earned his doctorate in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981 and went on to serve as a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., where he and Christy received an award for their work monitoring global temperatures with satellites. Spencer became a research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville in 2001.

While his personal website notes that his research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies and not oil companies, he does have a leadership role in groups with financial ties to Big Oil. They include:

* George C. Marshall Institute. Spencer currently serves as a director at the George C. Marshall Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit that receives substantial funding from oil and gas interests -- including Exxon, which has given the group at least $840,000 since 1998, according to Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets.org database. The Marshall Institute used to restrict its funding to private foundations and individual donors, but in the late 1990s, after it began working to cast doubt on global warming, the group made the decision to accept money from corporations and their foundations.

The Marshall Institute's former executive director, Matthew B. Crawford, wrote an essay for the New York Times back in 2009 that accused the group -- which he did not name -- of distorting facts in pursuit of its ideological agenda:


But certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style -- that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.

* Cornwall Alliance. Spencer is a member of the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance, a conservative Christian public-policy group that promotes a free-market approach to environmental stewardship and whose "Resisting the Green Dragon" campaign portrays the climate-protection movement as a sort of false religion. The Cornwall Alliance has close ties to a conservative policy group called the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which has received over $580,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org. Paul Driessen, who played a guiding role in forming the group now known as the Cornwall Alliance, also served as a consultant for ExxonMobil and CFACT, which has also received at least $60,500 from Chevron and $1.28 million from the the foundation of the Scaife family, whose wealth comes in part from Gulf Oil, as Think Progress reports.

* Encounter Books. Spencer is the author of three books critical of mainstream climate science: Climate Confusion, published in 2008, and The Great Global Warming Blunder and The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama's Global Warming Agenda, both released last year. All of those works were published by Encounter Books, which is a project of the conservative nonprofit Encounter for Culture and Education. That group's major funders include the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, which in turn is controlled by one of the owners of Kansas-based Koch Industries, among the world's richest privately held companies with extensive holdings in oil refineries and pipelines. The Kochs have played a critical role in funding climate-denial efforts, contributing $24.9 million to organizations that have worked to cast doubt on mainstream climate science.

* Tech Central Station. Spencer served as a columnist and a member of the science roundtable for Tech Central Station. Until 2006, TCS was run by DCI Group, a lobbying and public-relations firm that has represented ExxonMobil.

So while Spencer may have "never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service," he has certainly served the oil industry's interest in amplifying doubt about climate change and downplaying the scientific consensus that it's real and caused in large part by human activity.

Thank you for providing the proof that you will not be offering any evidence whatever that Dr Spencer is either a kook or that he is living off money from Big Oil, and proving in addition that the claims to that effect are fabrications in their entirety.

[Truth To Power]

It's Dark Money filtered through the organisations they own. But it wasn't always that way:

"Why have we waited so long to deal with this crisis? Lots of reasons, from the sheer scale and inertia of our energy systems to the psychology of denial. But the fossil fuel mafia played a big part in it. Thanks in part to Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporting a few years ago by InsideClimate News, we now know that ExxonMobil and Shell and other Big Oil companies knowingly misled the public and their shareholders about the risk that climate change poses to their assets, as well as to the habitability of the planet. In internal memos dating back to the 1970s, Exxon predicted that the effects of fossil fuel pollution could “indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the world’s population).” In 1982, it estimated that the atmosphere would contain 415 parts per million of carbon dioxide in 2019 – a stunningly accurate prediction. As a recent New York Times editorial pointed out, “The parade of horribles foreseen by the company — sea level rise, more intense rain and snow, inundation, hotter temperatures, desertification, agricultural disruption — are now regular features of the nightly news. And it will only get worse.”

But rather than warn the public, Exxon spent over $30 million on climate-denying think tanks and shady researchers to confuse people about the risks of climate change, while doubling down on its mission to pump as much oil out of the ground as quickly as it could."
https://kleanindustries.com/resources/e ... y-with-it/

But that's small change compared with what the Koch alliance spent.

Thank you for confirming that you will not be offering any credible evidence whatever that climate realists are kooks or that they are living off money from Big Oil, and that your claims that they are were fabrications in their entirety.

[late]

Thank you for confirming that you will not be offering any credible evidence whatever that climate realists are kooks or that they are living off money from Big Oil, and that your claims that they are were fabrications in their entirety.

You keep pretending you have a leg to stand on, they won the Pulitzer because they nailed it.

Here is a partial list of Koch funded organisations thar are part of they climate propaganda machine:

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Total $2,295,662 $3,375,620 $3,435,620
15
American Spectator Foundation Total $127,361 $171,861 $171,861
16
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) Total $526,430 $6,330,584 $6,330,584
17
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) Total $7,250 $117,250 $117,250
18

Atlas Network (formerly Atlas Economic Research Foundation) Total
$490,847 $655,469 $715,469
19
Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) Total $290,500 $415,500 $415,500
20
California Policy Center Total $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
21
Capital Research Center Total $50,888 $720,888 $745,888
22
Cato Institute Total $8,548,018 $14,093,768 $22,437,008
23
Center for Freedom & Prosperity Foundation Total $75,000 $129,266 $129,266
24
Center for Independent Thought Total $170,000 $325,000 $325,000
25
Center for the National Interest Total $852,450 $852,450 $852,450
26

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Total
$0 $85,000 $85,000
27

Center for the Study of Market Processes (precursor to Mercatus) Total
$0 $50,000 $250,000
28
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) Total $4,800 $4,800 $4,800
29

Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation (precursor to AFP) Total
$0 $6,510,375 $12,331,712
30

Civitas Institute (John William Pope Civitas Institute) Total
$41,125 $41,125 $41,125
31

CO2 Coalition (formerly George C. Marshall Institute) Total
$175,409 $670,409 $670,409
32

Collegians For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT Campus) Total
$3,812 $16,097 $16,097
33

Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) Total
$38,252 $38,252 $38,252
34

Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives Total
$17,368 $83,284 $83,284
35
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) Total $297,660 $848,259 $1,043,259
36
Council for National Policy Total $0 $100,000 $100,000
37
Daily Caller News Foundation Total $3,448,629 $3,509,693 $3,509,693
38
Education Action Group Foundation Total $0 $45,000 $45,000
39
Encounter for Education and Culture Total $345,000 $395,000 $395,000
40
Environmental Literacy Council Total $0 $180,000 $180,000
41

Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies Total
$2,625,664 $5,662,499 $5,714,499
42
Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) Total $515,400 $546,167 $546,167
43

Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) Total
$0 $1,525,000 $1,650,500
44

Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity Total
$133,705 $142,407 $142,407
45
Fraser Institute Total $911,000 $1,676,500 $1,699,721
46
Free Market Environmental Law Clinic Total $16,185 $16,185 $16,185
47
Frontiers of Freedom Total $160,000 $335,000 $335,000
48
Future of Freedom Foundation Total $20,000 $35,000 $45,000
49
Georgia Public Policy Foundation Total $49,884 $51,634 $51,634
50
Goldwater Institute Total $245,000 $320,000 $320,000
51
Grassroots Institute of Hawaii Total $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
52
Heartland Institute Total $0 $55,000 $100,000
53
Heritage Foundation Total $829,356 $6,342,201 $6,476,201
54
Hudson Institute Total $69,000 $151,650 $151,650
55
Humane Studies Foundation Total $0 $0 $300,000
56
Illinois Policy Institute Total $135,837 $135,837 $135,837
57
Independence Institute (II) Total $0 $141,000 $141,000
58
Independent Institute Total $50,000 $200,000 $210,000
59
Independent Women's Forum (IWF) Total $0 $844,115 $844,115
60
Institute for Energy Research (IER) Total $460,742 $700,742 $702,742
61

Institute for Humane Studies (IHS), at George Mason University (GMU) Total
$26,949,416 $47,362,734 $51,571,716
62
Institute of World Politics Total $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
63

James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal (formerly John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy) Total
$65,000 $65,000 $65,000
64
James Madison Institute Total $739,000 $887,479 $887,479
65
John Locke Foundation Total $178,000 $325,472 $337,472
66
Kansas Policy Institute Total $17,500 $22,500 $22,500
67
Leadership Institute Total $173,593 $290,292 $302,292
68
Liberty on the Rocks Total $15,000 $25,000 $25,000
69
MacIver Institute for Public Policy, John K. Total $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
70
Mackinac Center for Public Policy Total $1,013,500 $1,097,651 $1,097,651
71
Maine Heritage Policy Center Total $7,500 $7,500 $7,500
72
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research Total $854,537 $3,252,537 $3,302,537
73
Media Research Center Total $0 $15,005 $15,005
74
Mercatus Center, George Mason University Total $189,500 $9,475,000 $11,381,065
75
National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) Total $25,000 $719,674 $795,674
76
National Review Institute Total $34,252 $44,252 $44,252
77
National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) Total $370,960 $410,271 $410,271
78
Nevada Policy Research Institute Total $60,650 $60,650 $60,650
79
Pacific Legal Foundation Total $165,558 $165,558 $165,558
80
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy Total $350,000 $1,752,000 $2,067,800
81
Philadelphia Society Total $48,000 $48,000 $48,000
82
Philanthropy Roundtable Total $21,845 $281,590 $281,590
83

Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) Total
$390,000 $608,144 $648,144
84
Reason Foundation Total $1,758,501 $3,885,759 $4,635,771
85
Remnant Foundation Total $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
86
Rio Grande Foundation Total $80,000 $80,000 $80,000
87

Smithsonian Institute Astrophysical Observatory (Willie Soon) Total
$0 $230,000 $230,000
88
State Policy Network Total $70,328 $134,551 $134,551
89
Strata Policy, Inc Total $3,222,538 $3,222,538 $3,222,538
90
Students for Liberty (SFL) Total $714,857 $820,185 $820,185
91
Tax Foundation Total $739,000 $1,416,100 $1,416,100
92
Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) Total $3,459,423 $4,158,422 $4,158,422
93
The Undercurrent (TU Publications) Total $14,000 $14,000 $14,000
94
Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) Total $15,093 $1,620,093 $1,622,593
95


The grand total is over $134 million dollars. It's also not the whole enchilada, I don't know of anyone that uses Dark Money as much as the Koch guys. That's why I don't have direct evidence of their funding kooks, they funnel it through shell corporations, and sometimes the groups mentioned above.

Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation

[Pants-of-dog]

Thank you for providing the proof that you will not be offering any evidence whatever that Dr Spencer is either a kook or that he is living off money from Big Oil, and proving in addition that the claims to that effect are fabrications in their entirety.

I never made those claims nor do I care about them.

It is true that Dr. Spencer has spread climate misinformation.

It is true that oil companies benefited from said misinformation.

It is also true that Dr. Spencer has received money indirectly from oil companies.

[Truth To Power]

I never made those claims nor do I care about them.

So you are trying to support claims you know to be false? That fits.

It is true that Dr. Spencer has spread climate misinformation.

I.e., what YOU think is misinformation, but which is actually true.

It is true that oil companies benefited from said misinformation.

Every company is in business to benefit from facts. That's how they make money: by understanding and acting on facts more effectively than their competitors.

It is also true that Dr. Spencer has received money indirectly from oil companies.

That's true of almost anyone in the West who has done paid research or charity work in any field.

You have nothing.

[Pants-of-dog]

So you are trying to support claims you know to be false? That fits.

I.e., what YOU think is misinformation, but which is actually true.

Every company is in business to benefit from facts. That's how they make money: by understanding and acting on facts more effectively than their competitors.

That's true of almost anyone in the West who has done paid research or charity work in any field.

You have nothing.

Anyone can look at the evidence and see that there is a reasonable supposition that oil companies paid Dr. Spencer to lie.

And since that is the only person you cited, we can say that all the climatologists that you cite are pad shills.

[late]

Anyone can look at the evidence and see that there is a reasonable supposition that oil companies paid Dr. Spencer to lie.

And since that is the only person you cited, we can say that all the climatologists that you cite are paid shills.

Note that all he has is childish denial, he knows he was nothing. Which is exactly why he accused you having nothing.

Looks like oil guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel, with so many good jobs going begging.

[Truth To Power]

Anyone can look at the evidence and see that there is a reasonable supposition that oil companies paid Dr. Spencer to lie.

No, there is no such reasonable supposition, it is a bald and libelous fabrication.

And since that is the only person you cited, we can say that all the climatologists that you cite are pad shills.

No, we cannot, and your behavior is disgraceful. I have cited other climatologists, including Judith Curry, Craig Idso and Richard Lindzen.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, there is no such reasonable supposition, it is a bald and libelous fabrication.

No, we cannot, and your behavior is disgraceful. I have cited other climatologists, including Judith Curry, Craig Idso and Richard Lindzen.

Please refute the evidence already given showing that Dr. Spencer receives money from oil companies.

Also, from my previous link:

In July, Spencer and his ESSC colleague William D. "Danny" Braswell had a paper [pdf] published in the geography journal Remote Sensing that looked at the effect of clouds on global warming. Spencer has long argued that Earth's climate is insensitive to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and that most warming can be attributed to natural variations in cloud cover. Unlike most comparable studies, Spencer's latest paper found that variations in clouds appeared to be more a cause of warming than an effect and concluded that clouds' role "remains an unsolved problem."

The paper soon made headlines, with Forbes reporting that "New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism" and Fox News asking, "Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?" That coverage was guided by press statements put out by the University of Alabama and Spencer himself that made dramatic claims about the study's findings.

But the paper immediately came under criticism from other climate scientists, who among other things pointed out that attempting to refute a large and growing body of scientific insights into global warming with one satellite data set is impossible. Writing for the climate science blog RealClimate, Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate Analysis Section pointed to the paper's flaws and concluded:


...[I]t is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published. ... The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper.


Soon after, the journal's editor-in-chief -- Vienna University of Technology professor Wolfgang Wagner -- resigned and apologized, saying the paper was not vetted properly:


From a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors. This selection by itself does not mean that the review process for this paper was wrong....

The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal.


This wasn't the first time other scientists found serious problems with the work of Spencer and his ESSC colleagues, as Trenberth detailed in another article he wrote about the controversy with John Abraham and Peter Gleick at The Daily Climate:


Their errors date to the mid-1990s, when their satellite temperature record reportedly showed the lower atmosphere was cooling. As obvious and serious errors in that analysis were made public, Spencer and [current ESSC Director John] Christy were forced to revise their work several times and, not surprisingly, their findings agree better with those of other scientists around the world: the atmosphere is warming.


Over the years, Spencer and Christy developed a reputation for making serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover. Last Thursday, for instance, the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres published a study led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer. Their findings showed that Christy erred in claiming that recent atmospheric temperature trends are not replicated in models.

This trend continues: On Tuesday the journal Geophysical Research Letters will publish a peer-reviewed study by Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist Andrew Dessler that undermines Spencer's arguments about the role of clouds in the Earth's energy budget.

Spencer is defending his paper on his blog. He blames the controversy surrounding it on those he calls the "gatekeepers" at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, founded in 1988 by the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization, who he says "have once again put pressure on a journal for daring to publish anything that might hurt the IPCC's politically immovable position that climate change is almost entirely human-caused."

Trenberth served as a lead author for the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change, which found that warming of the climate system is "unequivocal" and that most of the increase in global average temperatures since the mid-1900s "is very likely due" to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions -- a view that has been endorsed by leading scientific bodies including the National Academy of Sciences and the International Council for Science. Spencer also contributed to the IPCC's 2001 assessment.

So we also have evidence that Dr. Spencer spread misinformation.

[Truth To Power]

You keep pretending you have a leg to stand on, they won the Pulitzer because they nailed it.

Whatever they might have "nailed," they did not provide any evidence for your claims.

Here is a partial list of Koch funded organisations thar are part of they climate propaganda machine:
...
Independent Women's Forum (IWF) Total $0 $844,115 $844,115

Please present your evidence that the Independent Women's Forum is part of a "climate propaganda machine."

Thought not.

I don't know of anyone that uses Dark Money as much as the Koch guys.

Then I gather you have never heard of the US government.

The Kochs' money can't be all that dark if you know about it.

That's why I don't have direct evidence of their funding kooks,

You don't have any evidence for such a claim, because you simply made it up.

they funnel it through shell corporations, and sometimes the groups mentioned above.

And you accuse me of conspiracy theories??

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Please note that you never mentioned Judith Curry, Craig Idso, or Richard Lindzen in this thread.

[late]

Whatever they might have "nailed," they did not provide any evidence for your claims.

Please present your evidence that the Independent Women's Forum is part of a "climate propaganda machine."

Actually, they did.

Koch has over a 100 organisations, and lots of shell companies.

Again, they've been doing this since the 90s, pretending a generation of propaganda didn't happen is just about your speed.

Btw, your mindless repetition is designed to upset your opponent. It's a dumb stunt I've seen many times before...

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Please note that you never mentioned Judith Curry, Craig Idso, or Richard Lindzen in this thread.

Yes, but you did not restrict your claim to this thread. Threads can get very long and often resemble each other a lot, so I don't even try keep track of what I have said in every thread separately. You claimed I had never cited anyone but Spencer. That was a falsehood.

[Truth To Power]

Actually, they did.

No they didn't. If they had, you would presumably have quoted it.

Koch has over a 100 organisations, and lots of shell companies.

Again, they've been doing this since the 90s, pretending a generation of propaganda didn't happen is just about your speed.[;/quote]
None of that is evidence for your claim, either, because you simply made it up.

Oh, the irony!

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, but you did not restrict your claim to this thread.

No one cares.

All of these scientists also received oil money.

Threads can get very long and often resemble each other a lot, so I don't even try keep track of what I have said in every thread separately. You claimed I had never cited anyone but Spencer. That was a falsehood.

All of the people you cite are spreading misinformation and are paid by oil companies.

Can you name a single climate skeptic that is not receiving oil money?

[Truth To Power]

Please refute the evidence already given showing that Dr. Spencer receives money from oil companies.

You have given no evidence whatever that Spencer "receives money from oil companies" any more than many thousands of other people engaged in paid research or charitable work that is funded by organizations that get donations from oil companies, and your claim is therefore misleading, disingenuous, and despicable.

Also, from my previous link:

In July, Spencer and his ESSC colleague William D. "Danny" Braswell had a paper [pdf] published in the geography journal Remote Sensing that looked at the effect of clouds on global warming. Spencer has long argued that Earth's climate is insensitive to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and that most warming can be attributed to natural variations in cloud cover. Unlike most comparable studies, Spencer's latest paper found that variations in clouds appeared to be more a cause of warming than an effect and concluded that clouds' role "remains an unsolved problem."

The paper soon made headlines, with Forbes reporting that "New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism" and Fox News asking, "Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?" That coverage was guided by press statements put out by the University of Alabama and Spencer himself that made dramatic claims about the study's findings.

But the paper immediately came under criticism from other climate scientists, who among other things pointed out that attempting to refute a large and growing body of scientific insights into global warming with one satellite data set is impossible. Writing for the climate science blog RealClimate, Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate Analysis Section pointed to the paper's flaws and concluded:


...[I]t is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published. ... The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper.


Soon after, the journal's editor-in-chief -- Vienna University of Technology professor Wolfgang Wagner -- resigned and apologized, saying the paper was not vetted properly:


From a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors. This selection by itself does not mean that the review process for this paper was wrong....

The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal.


This wasn't the first time other scientists found serious problems with the work of Spencer and his ESSC colleagues, as Trenberth detailed in another article he wrote about the controversy with John Abraham and Peter Gleick at The Daily Climate:


Their errors date to the mid-1990s, when their satellite temperature record reportedly showed the lower atmosphere was cooling. As obvious and serious errors in that analysis were made public, Spencer and [current ESSC Director John] Christy were forced to revise their work several times and, not surprisingly, their findings agree better with those of other scientists around the world: the atmosphere is warming.


Over the years, Spencer and Christy developed a reputation for making serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover. Last Thursday, for instance, the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres published a study led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer. Their findings showed that Christy erred in claiming that recent atmospheric temperature trends are not replicated in models.

This trend continues: On Tuesday the journal Geophysical Research Letters will publish a peer-reviewed study by Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist Andrew Dessler that undermines Spencer's arguments about the role of clouds in the Earth's energy budget.

Spencer is defending his paper on his blog. He blames the controversy surrounding it on those he calls the "gatekeepers" at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, founded in 1988 by the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization, who he says "have once again put pressure on a journal for daring to publish anything that might hurt the IPCC's politically immovable position that climate change is almost entirely human-caused."

Trenberth served as a lead author for the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change, which found that warming of the climate system is "unequivocal" and that most of the increase in global average temperatures since the mid-1900s "is very likely due" to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions -- a view that has been endorsed by leading scientific bodies including the National Academy of Sciences and the International Council for Science. Spencer also contributed to the IPCC's 2001 assessment.

Thank you for confirming that you have not offered any evidence for your claims, and will never be doing so. (Hint: posting 1000 words that do not support your claims is not better evidence for your claims than posting 200 words that do not support your claims.)

So we also have evidence that Dr. Spencer spread misinformation.

No, we do not. We only have evidence that he disagreed with people you happen to agree with.

[Pants-of-dog]

You have given no evidence whatever that Spencer "receives money from oil companies" any more than many thousands of other people engaged in paid research or charitable work that is funded by organizations that get donations from oil companies, and your claim is therefore misleading, disingenuous, and despicable.

No.

My claim is correct,

Dr. Spencer receives money from oil companies.

The fact that others do to is irrelevant.

And yes, I did provide evidence.

Thank you for confirming that you have not offered any evidence for your claims, and will never be doing so. (Hint: posting 1000 words that do not support your claims is not better evidence for your claims than posting 200 words that do not support your claims.)

I provided evidence that Spencer receives money from oil companies.

No, we do not. We only have evidence that he disagreed with people you happen to agree with.

[/quote]

And evidence that he spreads misinformation.

You literally just quoted it.

[Truth To Power]

No one cares.

More accurately, you do not care that you made a false accusation against me.

All of these scientists also received oil money.

Of course, because as I already informed you and you ignored, anyone doing paid research or charitable work funded by organizations that get donations from oil companies has, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," also "received oil money," including anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers. Indeed, the only people you can claim never received any oil money are those who have never received any but government money.

All of the people you cite are spreading misinformation and are paid by oil companies.

No, you simply made that up.

Can you name a single climate skeptic that is not receiving oil money?

Can you name anyone that isn't? All the universities get oil money, so in your mind, that means anyone who has ever worked at or for a university is a paid shill for oil companies. It's just absurd, disingenuous nonsense.