Friends of Science on Global Warming and Kyoto
April 20, 2007 · By George Freeman
Don’t be a sucker, check out the Friends of Science.
Comments
18 Responses to “Friends of Science on Global Warming and Kyoto”
Got something to say?
-
Recent Comments
- clay: Now is the time to invest all of your...
- C: “Get out of the US dollar before it is...
- Abattoir: For all those outraged by the...
- John: fI think it would be HIGHLY irresponsible...
- glacialgal: Look Kenny, Mr. Abattoir killed a...
- glacialgal: This entire action is an outrage....
- Ken: I’d like to extend a warm...
- Ken: Glacialcow for starters I’m not...
- Abattoir: When you provide a source backing up...
- glacialgal: Here ya’ go Kenny. I know you...
-
Blogrolls
Heh. Don’t be a sucker, indeed. I didn’t know anyone still took “Friends of Science” seriously.
http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html
Bal: So FOS gets some money from oil companies which might slant the research. But should we really believe that the pro-Kyoto side scientists and activists are lily-white, motivated by pure motives? Should we believe Environment Canada scientists are not motivated by motives involving political, bureaucratic, career, or financial gain? FOS may be tainted, but it doesn’t follow that the other side is not.
Tom, FOS is an advocacy organization with, essentially, one goal: to provide a scientific rationale to justify Canadian withdrawal from the Kyoto Accord. It’s a political group with a political agenda, not a scientific body. They don’t fund scientific research - they fund advocacy and spin. That’s okay - it’s all part of the way the game is played. But I never trusted the studies on cancer funded by the tobacco companies, and I don’t trust advocacy and spin (not science) funded by the sector that stands to lose the most if Kyoto is implemented.
“But should we really believe that the pro-Kyoto side scientists and activists are lily-white, motivated by pure motives?”
It’s interesting that you characterize them that way. I think you need to remember the distinction between scientific research and public policy. IPCC is by and large about science: Kyoto is a political response to the IPCC findings (as well as other data). I know quite a few scientists in various disciplines (my wife holds a post doc from McGill in biology), and I have yet to discuss the IPCC findings with anyone who thinks they’re bad or biased science. But there would be far less agreement on Kyoto as a solution to the IPCC (and other) findings. They are not “activists”; they’re researchers interested in finding stuff out.
The other point of interest is, of course, the links documented in the article between the “Friends of Science”, the oil industry, and Stephen Harper’s core group of advisors and associates.
I wasn’t shocked when I read this stuff: that’s simply how the game is played, as I said. But in all honesty, you should draw two conclusions from it:
- don’t kid yourself about the goal of “Friends of Science”: and,
- don’t kid yourself about the purity of Conservative policy making in their newly minted deep and pious concern for the environment. It ain’t the purity of science they’re concerned about protecting.
Bal: I’m not in total disagreement with your points. However, I didn’t mention IPCC. I mentioned Environment Canada, which would be the government agency in which the IPCC report would get transmitted and the “battleground” for domestic political debate. Scientists working there would feel the pressure to produce results their government superiors would like to see. That’s how bureaucracies work. University researchers like your wife would feel less pressure, although the fact that nearly all funding for scientific research in Canada goes through one government agency raises questions about how scientific “consensus” is formed.
I’d also question how close the so-called Calgary School is to Harper. Yes, some of its members have and continue to work quite closely with him. But he also has to attend to numerous other factions within the coalition that brought him to power.
Moreover, I think one can oppose Kyoto without being in the pockets of big oil, a common trope mentioned by environmentalists. One can simply oppose Kyoto simply because it makes for bad public policy. One can even oppose Kyoto and still be an environmentalist.
“University researchers like your wife…”
She works for Health Canada, actually.
Your points on Kyoto are entirely correct. I personally have reservations about it. But George was presenting the so called “Friends of Science” with the suggestion that they were somehow an antidote to being “duped” - I thought it might be useful for your readership to know a bit more about them. They can then decide for themselves.
The science of climate change has a lot of variables to try and wield.
BUT, even if man-made climate change is occurring and can be stopped, to play devil’s advocate:
Apart from drowning polar bears, isn’t it in Canada’s national interest to encourage global warming?
Why should we spend billions of dollars saying we’re fighting climate change and not, when we are one of the few countries who has a lot to gain from climate change?
I think it’s a good question. Canadian farmers would benefit from longer growing seasons and droughts down south. With warmer weather, the northern territories might experience an influx of people.
Fascinating question, George, and just about as far from the embarasssing question of big oil paying for “Friends of Science” to shill for them as one could get.
Next time, just look at your watch and say “Oh, my GOD, look at the TIME, I’d LOVE to stay and rebut but I REALLY have to run.” It would be more subtle. ;)
A lot of good people work for big oil. It’s a risky business, boom and bust. Automatically impugning the motives of big oil with respect to the environment is overplayed, as Cerber writes. Even Al Gore has ties to big oil.
As far as doing something about climate change, I don’t see that the solutions are all that simple. It seems clear that Kyoto is going to be very harmful to our economy, and would have been to that of the United States.
Now, that’s no excuse for doing nothing, but when the costs are prohibitively high because they weaken our position of geopolitical strength in the world, the science of climate change should be scrutinized and debated. Friends of Science is one more voice!
Does big oil have an incentive for criticizing the science of climate change? Sure. But I don’t see how that is a bad thing, and Tom explains very well how many who weigh in on this issue have an axe to grind.
So Barbie, if you don’t mind, please answer my questions?
I find it hard getting upset about global warming. It doesn’t keep me awake at night. Does it not appear to be in Canada’s national interest to encourage global warming? If not, why?
Is that how “discussion” works, George? When your first point blows up in your face, change the topic until you find ground you’re a bit more sure of? ;)
I engage in a thread when the topic interests me. Your apparent straight-faced accptance of a lobby group as a bona-fide source of scientific information amused me, and I responded.
You want to talk about something else? Start a thread, and if I’m interested, I’ll join in.
I haven’t changed the topic and this IS my thread, if you didn’t notice.
“Lobby group” is a pretty encompassing category and a lot of the people involved with Friends of Science have solid credentials to be saying what they are saying.
You express moral indignation over such an “obviously” biased group saying anything on climate change; when their bankroll not their bias is the only thing that’s obvious.
Why the moral indignation? Clearly you believe climate change to be a big problem, and I’m simply responding to that by questioning whether Canadians should see it as that much of problem.
“You express moral indignation over such an “obviously†biased group saying anything on climate change; when their bankroll not their bias is the only thing that’s obvious.”
“Moral indignation”? Not at all. I guess you missed my two quite sanguine statements of acceptance.
I just thought your readers should know who was paying these folks to question Kyoto. When I read statistics about the link between smoking and cancer, I tend to view those provided by tobacco companies a bit more sceptically. Perhaps you don’t, and that, of course, is entirely your privilege.
This IS my thread, if you didn’t notice.
Ha! Now George thinks he owns the internet.
“Ha! Now George thinks he owns the internet.”
Seems to be a common affliction among people interested in the climate change debate.
Point taken, grudgingly.
Although big oil is hardly the narrowly interested cartel that many make it out to be; the astronomical costs involved in its doing business make it much more conglomerate than—and hardly comparable to—big tobacco; the science of climate change much more spurious than the science of smoking related cancer.
But if you don’t wish to go in the direction I wished to go, I suppose you are free to do so.
For a fairly complete, annotated description of Friends of Science activities (including apparently illegal third-party electoral advertising, as well as misrepresentations concerning supposed University of Calgary affiliation), check out:
http://sourcewatch.org/index.p.....of_Science
balbulican wrote : “and I have yet to discuss the IPCC findings with anyone who thinks they’re bad or biased science”
Have you tried to read John Christy’s personal papers? He’s an IPCC lead author…
http://www.atmos.uah.edu/atmos/john_hearings.html
Until two years or so ago, John Christy’s analysis of global tropospheric temperature, based on satellite data, showed a much smaller increase trend than surface data, for the period from 1979 to present. However, that discrepancy has been greatly narrowed recently, partly due to the greater volatility and uncertainty of satellite-derived estimates, but mainly as a result of the correction of major errors in his analysis methodology. In fact, the warming trend estimate of the Christy-Spencer team has gone from 0.04 deg/decade to 0.14, more than tripling. Of course, much of their previous testimony and criticism of the IPCC was based on their grossly mistaken analysis. An interesting discussion of all this can be found here:
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...../#more-217