[leot]

For me, at least, it's a matter of volume-within-the-public-sphere. Oil and business lobby groups are undoubtedly better organized and better funded than most everyone else.

I think the purpose of the quotes is not to demonstrate that the organizations are FUD-dispersers, but that they're all pushing the same message: be skeptical about what you hear about global warming. I'm sure PR people have tons of nice ways of framing what it is that Exxon is doing (I mean, why shouldn't ExxonMobil have the right to advocate for its own interests, right?) FUD is less effective if it's obvious, and it's in every anti-CO2-regulation think-tank's interest to appear as objective as possible, and make it look they're reasonable people who just might have come down on the other side, but, goshdarnit, they just came to a different conclusion because that was the best one any objective rational observer could come to. Also, the Cato institute seems to have more integrity among the libertarian-leaning groups, at least in my eyes, so it's not surprising that at least they would be more measured.

But while were here, let's look at some other recipients, though: "Cooler heads coalition" deeds: Held a congressional and media briefing entitled "Impacts of Global Warming: Why the Alarmist View is Wrong". Speakers presented arguments against claims that global warming will cause increases in extreme weather events, sea level rise, vector-borne diseases, and species extinction. Source: Cooler Heads Coalition website 5/04

CEI: 'Published article named "Liberal 'Scientists' Lead Jihad Against Global-Warming Skeptics" No mention of 'jihad' anywhere within the article itself, and no explanation for the reference to a connection between the scientists and jihad in the title of the article. It seems to be a cheap attempt at sensationalism and hate mongering by trying to connect global warming scientists to terrorism.' Source: CEI website, 5/07" ... and 'Warning that the $125 million film fails to employ sound science to back up its depictions, the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute has sent reporters a listing of global-warming skeptics who can be counted on to dispute the film's premise. Source: "Disaster Flick Unleashes a Blizzard of Spin," Scripps Howard News, May 14 2004'

Heritage Foundation: "[C]alls to drastically reduce emissions in sulfur dioxide (SOx), nitrogen oxide (NOx), mercury, and carbon dioxide would jeopardize U.S. energy and national security. ...The Bush administration and Congress need to steadfastly resist alarmist calls to drastically reduce carbon dioxide, a clear, odorless gas and a fundamental nutrient of the planetary food chain. Curbing carbon dioxide would cause a major change in the electricity-generation fuel mix and would adversely affect the nation's energy supply and economic strength."

... I'd say much of this counts as FUD, wouldn't you? And there looks to be about 150 of such organizations, with employees working all day, every day, to make sure that their organization continues to receive funding from businesses to whom a carbon tax is a major threat.

[glenra]

I'm sure you believe what you're saying, but no, I don't think any of that counts as FUD. When people say stuff you disagree with that is true you can't call it FUD. Your claim "Oil and business lobby groups are undoubtedly better organized and better funded than most everyone else" is pretty clearly false if the amounts featured at exxonsecrets are any indication; they're a pittance compared to the funding the alarmist groups get. Like, that Cato page (again) says Cato got $125k since 1998, which averages out to roughly $10k/year. There are only a couple groups on the list getting the kind of funding that could even plausibly affect their agenda; all the others are just on the list for rhetorical value. Like, Group X said something we don't like once or hosted a lecture by somebody we don't like and Exxon gave them a $5k grant once, so we're going to connect the dots and claim nefarious motives.

Again, rather than do a point-by-point, I'm just going to pick one. You hilite that CEI wrote an article titled "Liberal 'Scientists' Lead Jihad Against Global-Warming Skeptics". Yeah, the title sounds sensationalist - titles often do that, but get over the title and actually read the damn article. It turns out to mostly be a debunking of...the effort that produced the exxonsecrets site! Here's the article:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20573

Quote:

====

In 2006, UCS decided to attack ExxonMobil, the world’s largest private energy company, over the issue of global warming. It also decided on its tactics: It would demonize the oil company by comparing it to cigarette companies. ExxonMobil, said UCS, was “adopt[ing] the tobacco industry’s disinformation tactics ... to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.”

In a paper issued Jan. 3, 2007, UCS accuses ExxonMobil of funding “front groups” opposed to the climate-alarmist agenda of groups such as UCS and of former Vice President Al Gore. The company, said the UCS report, had distributed $16 million to 43 advocacy groups from 1998 to 2005 “to confuse the public on global-warming science.” Let’s leave aside the fact that $16 million over eight years can’t match the $2 billion that the federally funded Climate Change Science Program spends each year on global warming, or even the $4 million annual budget of just one of the many well-funded global-warming advocacy groups, Strategies for the Global Environment (the umbrella organization for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change).[...]

UCS doesn’t focus its attacks on the actual work produced by the organizations it targets. Instead, it tries to discredit its opponents by using ad hominem innuendo. And that’s what gets the attention of the media. For instance, when astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas determined that the Earth’s temperature had actually been warmer at earlier times in history -- a premise endorsed by a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel -- UCS ignored the research but attacked the researcher personally, noting that Baliunas was affiliated with the George C. Marshall Institute, which UCS said had received $630,000 in ExxonMobil grants for its climate-science program.

=====

>And there looks to be about 150 of such organizations, with employees working all day, every day, to make sure that their organization continues to receive funding from businesses to whom a carbon tax is a major threat.

Ahem. One of those organization is a university that gets occasional $5k grants. $5k probably gets a nice thank you letter but does not get you employees "working all day, every day" to make your interest theirs. Another dozen random links I clicked were to organizations for whom the documented contribution of Exxon is $0. If you think there are 150 organizations on that list that are heavily influenced by Exxon, you've been snookered by a PR effort.

[leot]

I didn't say that every employee at all 150 organizations was working all day, every day to disprove claims of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It is, however, the case that many of these organizations are in the business of getting grants from the likes of the Chamber of Commerce and other such organizations that have a vested interest in preventing cap-and-trade or a carbon tax. And the idea that scientific funding of climate change research is somehow equivalent to the funding of AGW denial advocacy groups is absurd.

Here's why AGW-denial often counts as FUD: it occurs within the public sphere, rather that the scientific (or even legal) one, and is thus not subject to (1) actor accountability, (2) the same standards of evidence, or (3) cogency/coherence of argument.

Science FUD goes like this:

a) careful, cautious scientists whose jobs depend on being "right" about nearly everything spend months researching, writing, and editing a careful, cautious paper making conservative claims supportive of AGW. Doing so, it is rather difficult to act in "bad faith".

b) In response, rather than produce a similarly careful cautious reply (in a scientific venue), the anti-AGW organization produces a "white paper", or press release, or op-ed, in which they "debunk" the scientific paper by making superficially appealing arguments, attractive to the 99% of people who are non-scientists. Such a reply is easy to produce by acting in "bad faith" (although, to a lawyer type, as lobbyists frequently are, this is simply advocacy).

Looking at 1-3, then: (1) Note the gross asymmetry between (a) and (b). If the actors in (a) are wrong, they lose standing in the scientific community, and in the case of scientific misconduct could very well lose their jobs. This is very hard to imagine happening in the case of a think-tank pundit, who operates in the institutional-memory-free public sphere, because (b)'s actors are not interacting with a community of experts but rather simply engaging in advocacy. Indeed, assuming that they are receiving funding from those with an anti-AGW agenda, they could even lose their jobs for telling the truth (c.f. David Frum at the AEI http://wonkette.com/404420/david-frum-leaves-national-review). See also http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagen...

(2) Anti-AGW organization "scholars" often trade in citation-free commentary (e.g. http://www.aei.org/article/103523). Because it's not their job to convince a group of scientific peers, they can get paid to do research sans scientific evidence.

(3) When anti-science advocacy groups have to present a cogent or coherent argument they tend to fall apart. E.g., the FUD against gay marriage (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) and FUD against evolution (Kitzmiller v. Dover School District). I've not yet found any such trial that pits anti- against pro-AGW people. But if this were to occur, I expect we would find a similar outcome.

[glenra]

> I've not yet found any such trial that pits anti- against pro-AGW people. But if this were to occur, I expect we would find a similar outcome.

One reason you have trouble finding such trials is that the pro-AGW people are afraid to debate anti-AGW people in public. When such debates happen, the skeptics tend to win. Here's one example of that happening:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070316_notcrisis.pdf

> Anti-AGW organization "scholars" often trade in citation-free commentary (e.g. http://www.aei.org/article/103523).

Yes, articles in the Los Angeles Times tend not to have citations. So what? It's not like the author is just making stuff up. The fact that you don't know offhand where some fact comes from mostly means you weren't paying attention to the underlying debate. (AEI, Cato, and Heritage studies do generally have citations, whether or not the resulting newspaper op-eds include them.)

Besides, pro-AGW folks also "often trade in citation-free commentary". The worst examples being when they discuss a specific skeptic's work but mischaracterize, paraphrase, and refuse to link to the original so their claims can be checked. (RealClimate did that repeatedly with respect to Steve McIntyre, leading to his amusing nickname: "he-who-must-not-be-named")

Oh, and you left off a step for the pro-AGW process: "Issue a dire press release that exaggerates your findings." :-)

> careful, cautious scientists whose jobs depend on being "right" about nearly everything

In what sense does an academic scientists' job depend on being "right" about anything? It does depend on publishing lots of articles, but most published articles are false. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/) What matters for publication is that the thesis is interesting and somewhat defensible at the time based on prior research, not that it's "right". They don't take your phd away when it turns out your thesis was wrong; wrong articles still count towards your publication record.

> "I didn't say that every employee at all 150 organization..."

True, but you did seem to imply that all 150 organizations had at least one employee trying to disprove AGW at least some of the time. But a university that gets a $5k grant every other year from Exxon - sufficient to make the list - is making less off that grant than it does from the average student, so your claim was trivially false. The claim of "150 organizations" is hyperbole. If you claimed that, say, "a dozen" organizations were doing that it would at least be plausible, but then you'd have to do the work to identify which ones you're making the claim about; the list you point to is itself FUD and essentially useless in that regard.

> "If the actors in (a) are wrong, they lose standing in the scientific community, and in the case of scientific misconduct could very well lose their jobs"

Being wrong does not constitute scientific misconduct; it is very hard to imagine an academic losing their job for that. Scientists are wrong all the time; it means nothing. It's a chance to write another paper correcting the error, further padding the CV. (Again, see the link I gave for "most published research findings are false")

[leot]

Come on, a public debate (lost by a pretty slim margin!) does not a trial make (especially not one that asks if global warming is a "crisis", rather than whether there is GW, whether humans are responsible, and what could happen if nothing is done, which is what's being dealt with here).

Even if you can find a few AEI, Cato, or Heritage foundation "studies" that genuinely try to participate in scientific debate on AGW (and I would be surprised if you could find more than one or two) I think you'll agree that the vast majority of the work of these organizations does no such thing. For some reason, AEI + co. seem more interested in convincing lay people that AGW doesn't exist than actually trying to figure out whether or not it does.

Scientists who are pro-AGW (the people I'm advocating we listen to) do not trade in citation-free commentary, even if they produce it for P.R. reasons. Their trade takes place subject to anonymous peer review and strict standards of evidence. A problem with AEI and friends is in part that they blur the line between scholarly and not scholarly work, putting out publications that have a few citations, but not engaged in a good faith attempt to figure out what's actually going on.

It looks like this debate is no longer about AGW per se, but instead on the reliability of the scientific process as a whole: It's not entirely clear what you mean by "most published articles are false". First, you're using a single article to back up a claim that the article itself undercuts to an extent. In fact, that article is making a very particular claim about the existence of alleged relationships. Genuinely good results are obviously good and aren't at all likely to be "false", and there are plenty of these, even if they're a minority. This is what is meant by working with the "best science". Like in everything else, most science is only of marginal use, but the subset that is useful is extremely useful and people can fairly easily recognize which is which.

I was very careful to separate misconduct from being wrong. Misconduct gets you fired. When you're stupendously and regularly right people want collaborate with you and fly you to their conferences. Less so with the anti-AGW crowd, in which I would guess good and prolific writing (irrespective of overall correctness or fairness) makes one popular.

> Scientists are wrong all the time; it means nothing.

This is so obviously ridiculous it hardly bears a response. If being wrong means nothing, then being right means nothing, and this can't be true. It's the job of an academic to be right about "new" out-on-a-limb things -- it's what they do. You could similarly conclude that because concert pianists play more wrong notes than the average person they must be bad at piano.

For some reason, anti-AGW people seem to believe that pro-AGW people either (1) want AGW to be taking place, or (2) want everyone to start living in communes ASAP. Neither of these is true. First, unlike the "disappointment" [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/apr/6/20060406-1121...] expressed over not finding WMD in Iraq, I don't know any pro-AGW person who will be similarly disappointed if the mean planet temperature stays roughly the same. Second, climate change scientists are normal people leading normal lives, if perhaps bicycling a little more frequently -- they don't in the aggregate want everyone to become hippies.

With respect to the 150 orgs -- I said what I said: they work (or did work) to make sure they continue(d) to be funded by corporations that stand(/stood) to lose if there is a carbon tax or somesuch. This doesn't mean they're spending all their time writing papers denying AGW -- at the very least they are engaged in fundraising, too. Regardless, how many well-funded organizations, acting in bad faith, would it take to produce enough FUD to change US public policy?

[glenra]

The only thing that matters is whether AGW is a crisis. If it's not, we don't especially need to do anything about it. The idea that any group is still claiming there's been no warming at all is essentially an urban legend. The debate has "moved on" from there. That public debate I referenced addressed to the heart of the question and the AGW side lost it; the skeptics (in my view, quite justifiably) won.

> It's not entirely clear what you mean by "most published articles are false"

I mean that most published research findings are false, for exactly the reasons detailed here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

You don't seem to have read the article, or you're missing the context it addresses. Of particular relevance to climate studies is that they tend to be looking for (a) a small effect size (b) in a popular field (c) with lots of money at stake and (d) a great deal of flexibility in experiment design and analysis methods - these are all aspects that suggest a higher-than average probability of false conclusions being reached.

> Genuinely good results are obviously good and aren't at all likely to be "false", and there are plenty of these, even if they're a minority.

I don't know how you are defining some results as "genuinely good" or "obviously good" - how would one test that? I question the assertion that these are useful categories. All scientific results are tentative and can be overturned by later results. "Obviousness" isn't something one can judge other than much much later in retrospect.

Regarding being wrong, the most damning aspect of the Hockey Team has been their inability to admit error. If you can't admit ever having made a mistake, you can't learn from your errors and make the study better next time. Of the two sides, my impression is that the skeptics have been more willing to admit and evaluate the possibility of error and more willing to explore other hypotheses. And also willing to say "we don't know" when that's the best answer. True, part of that comes from being outside the mainstream so there's less at stake. But another part is that CAGW isn't really a scientific position - it more closely resembles a religion. (Infallibility is a more popular attribute among the faithful than it is among the scientifically minded.) Again and again we see data sets used inappropriately on the grounds that doing so produces the right answer - that's just not science. You can't arbitrarily flip and crop Mia Tiljander's sediment series or search through Graybill bristlecones until you find some that have the right shape, and then use the shape they produce as evidence for your theory.

You're right, I'm pretty sure pro-AGW people do at some level want it to be taking place. They do so because threats to humanity are exciting. Humans have a need to be involved and worried about threats and there just aren't enough real threats to worry about in modern life. Centuries ago, people were too busy scrabbling for food or fighting in wars or fighting diseases to be worried about anything so obscure and distant. Worrying that things might get ever-so-slightly warmer a century from now, that water levels might be ever-so-slightly higher then than now, that we might need to plant different crops or observe a different mix of wildlife ...is a huge luxury.