
Motorbuys | Local Jobs |
Homes |
Rental Property |
Coupons |
Garage Sales|
Classifieds | Worship | ShopNow
|
August 29, 2008, 6:58 pm
|
Advertising |
Welcome to the new edenprairienews.com, the home page of the Eden Prairie News newspaper. Let us know what you think of the changes to the site.
Got a news tip? Email us, or call us at (952) 942-7885
|
Search |
User loginAdvertising
Most VotesThese are the most popular stories as measured by the averaged sum of the number of votes that have been submitted for them. Latest pollWhat is your opinion of the Eden Prairie City Council's rejection of the lease of Dunn Bros. in the Smith-Douglas-More House?The Eden Prairie City Council recently rejected the lease offer of the Dunn Bros. franchisee in the Smith-Douglas-More house in Eden Prairie, to investigate whether another tenant might pay more. What do you think of the decision? Email Edition
Type in your email address and click "Subscribe" to receive our E-mail Edition in your inbox.
Poll |
Fact Checking: Campaign of Denial Funded by Oil Industry
July 8, 2008 - 1:21pm — edenpprairiefac...
Fact Checking: “Beware of Global Warming Extremists” This summer at the GOP Convention in St Paul the issue of climate change will be on the table. McCain supports cap and trade, but some in the Republican Party dispute climate change. There is ample evidence indicating the oil industry is complicit in commandeering a misinformation campaign to dispute global warming. The ACU (The American Conservative Union), the nation's oldest and largest grassroots conservative lobbying organization is going to fight against climate change initiatives in the Republican platform this summer at the GOP Convention. The organization’s stated purpose is to “communicate and advance the goals and principles of conservatism through one multi-issue, umbrella organization. According to the Washington Post, “Government action to address global warming is the centerpiece of his [McCain’s] campaign. He supports a cap-and-trade emissions plan that many conservatives oppose, and he has talked about trying to reach a global-emissions agreement that includes China and India. "It is something that we are very concerned with," said Donald J. Devine, vice chairman of the American Conservative Union, which will have a convention operation to monitor proposed changes to the platform. In past years, the ACU has produced an alternative conservative platform as a guide to those working on the real one. Devine said he is hopeful that the environmental planks in the platform will focus on McCain's support for nuclear power plants and his willingness to revisit offshore oil and gas drilling. But he is prepared for the worst. " http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR200807... Oil Industry Spent $16M to fund skeptic Groups to Create Confusion about Global Warming The UCS, (Union of Concerned Scientists) says, “that the plain fact is the oil industry spent nearly $16 million to fund skeptic groups and create confusion about global warming according to scientists’ report documents on Exxon Mobil’s tobacco-like disinformation campaign. A full PDF report is available at the URL below. “ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil. Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups. Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13 scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper. This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists. "When one looks closely, ExxonMobil's underhanded strategy is as clear and indisputable as the scientific research it's meant to discredit," said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS report. "The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests, ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about global warming." "ExxonMobil has used the laudable goal of improving scientific understanding of global warming—under the guise of "sound science"—for the pernicious ends of delaying action to reduce heat-trapping emissions indefinitely. ExxonMobil also exerted unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming, from successfully recommending the appointment of key personnel in the Bush administration to funding climate change deniers in Congress. http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacc... Republicans Buying into the Denial Industry's Climate Skepticism Pew Research came out with a poll in May of 2008 which revealed there’s a partisan divide on the issue of global warming. http://people-press.org/report/417/a-deeper-partisan-divide-over-global-... ExxonSecrets Blog Funding of Denial Industry In June of this year James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute issued the strongest warning against CEO’s of major companies, singling out Exxon and others for the continued funding of the denial industry, peddling confusion and doubt in the public. This week also saw an new poll in the UK paper, The Observer, pointing out the rise of climate skepticism, which follows an earlier poll in the US saying the same thing. The US poll, though, showed that the rise was amongst Republicans. " Crimes against humanity? Who's being cute, Exxon? Exxon finally admits denialists cause problems Read entire text at this URL: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-... 2008 Earth Impacts Linked to Human-Caused Climate Change- May 14, 2008 According to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies “A new NASA-led study shows human-caused climate change has made an impact on a wide range of Earth's natural systems, including permafrost thawing, plants blooming earlier across Europe, and lakes declining in productivity in Africa. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/ |
Advertising |
Dear Vamma...
Back to page topDear Vamma Fact-Checker:
Once again the links you offer to create a facade of support for your positions are meaningless. For how many months have you been doing this?
You are nothing more that a snake-oil salesman offering a too-good-to-be-true product to common folk.
I present your claim, "There is ample evidence indicating the oil industry is complicit in commandeering a misinformation campaign to dispute global warming." There is not a single word in any on the Internet links you provide that supports your assertion. Your strategy is to throw out leftist talking points and offer an e-link for assurance, knowing full well that the occasional reader who chooses to check your "facts" will be left to search for a needle in the haystack to prove you wrong.
This isn't the first lie you've told, but honestly I've got better thinks to do than be the fact-checkers fact checker. When you type this garbage do you use both hands or is one free to deal with your Freudian issues?
Your tactics are disgraceful, get a life!
"Shooting Messenger" Bigfoot...
Back to page top"Shooting Messenger"
Bigfoot your post is a personal attack not a discussion of an issue.
I understand that partisan types have a hard time being impartial or it would seem rational. In fact they do the very thing Peter B. accuses so-called "global warming extremists" of, "shooting the messenger."
There's nothing more dishonest than perpetuating unsubstantiated information (by not providing links), in the case of the "Global Warming Extremist" post that's over a year old. Peter B. provided no links to substantiate claims made.
Pew clearly indicates a partisan divide on the issue. But, much of the evidence in support is provided, in part, by non-partisan governmental organizations, for instance NASA.
There is a preponderance of evidence for the existence of a human contribution.
You seem not to be the type of reader who is interested in analyzing and researching all the information, even though easy links are provided.
The point is to allow everyone to come to their own conclusion by taking the time to view differing information and assess on their own. Peter's post is out-dated. It's up to readers to draw their own opinions. It's not up to you or me.
The internet is the "haystack" and it allows us to find any needle at fingers' touch. I suggest you start looking. You seem to need help, so here is the latest from NASA:
The latest from NASA
This new information makes Peter B's commentary out-dated. At the very least, he should revisit his original post and update it.
NASA study links changes in Earth's systems to global warming- May 14, 2008
"Human-induced climate change has impacted a wide range of Earth's natural systems, including permafrost, lakes, and oceans, reports a new study led by scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science (GISS).
The research, based on more than 29,000 data series on observed impacts on Earth's natural systems, links "physical and biological impacts since 1970 with rises in temperatures during that period."
"This is the first study to link global temperature data sets, climate model results, and observed changes in a broad range of physical and biological systems to show the link between humans, climate, and impacts," said Cynthia Rosenzweig, lead author of the study and a researcher at NASA's GISS. "
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0514-nasa.html
NASA study links Earth impacts to human-caused climate change- May 14, 2008
"A new NASA-led study shows human-caused climate change has made an impact on a wide range of Earth's natural systems, including permafrost thawing, plants blooming earlier across Europe, and lakes declining in productivity in Africa.
Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York and scientists at 10 other institutions have linked physical and biological impacts since 1970 with rises in temperatures during that period. The study, to be published May 15 in the journal Nature, concludes human-caused warming is resulting in a broad range of impacts across the globe.
"This is the first study to link global temperature data sets, climate model results, and observed changes in a broad range of physical and biological systems to show the link between humans, climate, and impacts," said Rosenzweig, lead author of the study.
Rosenzweig and colleagues also found the link between human-caused climate change and observed impacts on Earth holds true at the scale of individual continents, particularly in North America, Europe, and Asia.
To arrive at the link, the authors built and analyzed a database of more than 29,000 data series pertaining to observed impacts on Earth's natural systems. The data were collected from about 80 studies, each with at least 20 years of records between 1970 and 2004.
Observed impacts included changes to physical systems, such as glaciers shrinking, permafrost melting, and lakes and rivers warming. Biological systems also were impacted in a variety of ways, such as leaves unfolding and flowers blooming earlier in the spring, birds arriving earlier during migration periods, and plant and animal species moving toward Earth's poles and higher in elevation. In aquatic environments such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, plankton and fish are shifting from cold-adapted to warm-adapted communities.
The team conducted a "joint attribution" study. They showed that at the global scale, about 90 percent of observed changes in diverse physical and biological systems are consistent with warming. Other driving forces, such as land use change from forest to agriculture, were ruled out as having significant influence on the observed impacts.
Next, the scientists conducted statistical tests and found the spatial patterns of observed impacts closely match temperature trends across the globe, to a degree beyond what can be attributed to natural variability. The team concluded observed global-scale impacts are very likely because of human-caused warming.
"Humans are influencing climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions," Rosenzweig said. "The warming is causing impacts on physical and biological systems that are now attributable at the global scale and in North America, Europe, and Asia."
On some continents, including Africa, South America, and Australia, documentation of observed changes in physical and biological systems is still sparse despite warming trends attributable to human causes. The authors concluded environmental systems on these continents need additional research, especially in tropical and subtropical areas where there is a lack of impact data and published studies."
Source: Goddard Space Flight Center
http://www.physorg.com/news129994572.htm
Are their contrarian views? Of course. The point is to find the most reliable, non-partisan, non-profit organizations and agencies who are more immuned to industry and lobbyist control.
Is it a fait accompli? No, not necessarily. There are new discoveries being made constantly, and new ways to measure, it's moveable and observation is ongoing.
But let's approach science with more thought, not partisan attacks.
No sources?? Vamma, you will...
Back to page topNo sources?? Vamma, you will find the reply to your latest false accusation located here.
After the fact... Peter you...
Back to page topAfter the fact...
Peter you did not source your original commentary. You added the sources after the fact when links were requested by those questioning its veracity.
You also didn’t include some of the citations which indicate that most of the people you’ve credited are people in the field who have taken positions against global warming, and they also have strong affiliations with the oil industry.
Either the research or involvement has been directly funded by or they are retained in some capacity to the oil industry.
The mistake that you continue to make is ascribing what other people say, like Paul Douglas or Al Gore to everyone else providing supporting information. I don’t think you can lump either the dissenters or the proponents in one neat package, unless you are tied to business and oil interests. Than you have a motive. Unfortuneately these speical interests have strong ties in Washington.
It’s an evolving science, and for that reason, its imperfect, as we’d both agree. And there are many middle grounders who call themselves “non-skeptical heretics” and others who come in all shapes and sizes of conviction or doubt.
Everyone is driving the discussion now from the Massachusettes Institute of Technology to the University of Colorado, to both conservative and progressive organizations who are not intentionally trying to undermine scientific research.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/01/science/01climate.html?pagewanted=1&_r...
You stated that “Some of the sources (and you refer to me as a "DFL operative" ? quotes, in fact, quite openly advocate prosecuting those who dare to doubt.”
"In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried."
Peter, you have to put this statement into context with entire text and a link. So, it's irrelevant until you do that.
You say I " label skeptics as "Global Warming Deniers" in order to put them morally on the same plane as Holocaust Deniers. Perhaps those who deny allegiance to her faith will one day have to wear a badge on their sleeves. Hopefully some of you can see where this is going."
My response is that this is an inflammatory faulty comparison that has no basis in fact, only in exaggeration.
I referred to supporters as Global Warming proponents; in no way do either the proponents or the deniers equate to Holocaust deniers or Holocaust victims, or the perpetrators for that matter. This is so illogical; it has no place in a discussion of science.
Peter wrote, “The Environmental Protection Agency already is under orders from the Supreme Court to determine if CO2, the basis for all plant (and therefore animal) life on Earth, is endangering the public health and welfare. If so, the EPA must regulate it and our economy.
Why debate? Totalitarians get everything they want by force and threats.”
“Totalitarians” is inaccurately described: more inaccurate inflammatory name-calling. But, ironically an accurate example of a "Totalitarian" is GWB, who "edited a recent EPA report refusing to allow the true findings about greenhouse gases."
"Their decision to ignore and redirect the EPA ensures the Bush administration will achieve a perfect record on global warming: a zero," Markey said in a statement.
http://environment.about.com/b/2008/07/01/white-house-blocks-epa-respons...
Who are the totalitarians?
Vamma, the sources were all...
Back to page topVamma, the sources were all provided to the EP News at the time the piece was first submitted. So, once again, you are wrong. Time to change your name from "fact checker" to "fact maker-upper".
Dubbing You The Distortion...
Back to page topDubbing You
The Distortion Master. The info wasn't supplied to the readers and that's why when the commentary was put online, readers asked for it. That's the point. The EPN does not have time to check sources. If they had they would have discovered your sources represent people or groups fighting Global Warming on behalf of the oil industry.
So you presented what you wanted us to see. You did not present the true picture of what's happening. You cherry picked. For instance:
In a Wikipedia about David Legates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Legates
Here’s the citation:
"The Union of Concerned Scientists published a study listing Legates among several scientists it described as "familiar spokespeople from ExxonMobil-funded organizations" that have regularly taken stands or sponsored reports questioning the science behind climate change warnings."[6] Legates is a senior scientist of the Marshall Institute[7], a research fellow with the Independent Institute[8], and an adjunct scholar of the Competitive Enterprise Institute[9], all of which have received funding from ExxonMobile.[10][11][12]
"In his lectures, Professor Legates has acknowledged that humans have a direct impact on the environment, however he has disputed large scale climatological studies where researchers fail to incorporate sufficient data involving; increased solar activity, water vapor as a greenhouse gas, data contamination through expansion of the urban heat island effect surrounding data collection points, and many other key variables in addition to the human chemical emissions that are the sole focus of many climatological studies.[citation needed]"
Richard Lindzen article -- “Climate of Fear” -- Wall St Journal, Wednesday April 12, 2006. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
How can you use an article on Global Warming from an opinion journal that offers more biased opinion. That's why your commentary is nothing more than a biased rant without a scintilla of veracity.
Even Wikipedia has a docier on Lindzen that describes him as someone heavily connected to the oil industry. Yet, you failed to note that in your commentary. You failed to note that about every person and organization you included.
Wikipedia on Lindzen- “Ross Gelbspan wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan claimed that Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[23]
In Aug 2006, according to Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam, Lindzen said that he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees, from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990's and had not received any money from these since. [24]
According to a PBS Frontline report, "Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen has also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute." [23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Lambert column including a link to the original article:
http://www.fraterslibertas.com/2007_03_01_archive.html#65076976457501695...
This is a partisan Republican Web Site you used as a source to disclaim Gobal Warming.
Each person you listed or organization is heavily involved in disputing Global Warming and are in lock-step with the oil industry. There is not one person or entity that you've listed that isn't. Therefore by not presenting that information you've skewed this piece. People read it and think unbiased, scientists are disparaging Global Warming out of purely altruistic and scientific discovery.
They are not.
That's why your commentary is dishonest.
Vamma/Vicki/Whatever your...
Back to page topVamma/Vicki/Whatever your name is:
Your first post made the claim that the article wasn't sourced.
You were proven wrong. Strike one.
Then you claimed that ok, it was sourced but not at the time of publication.
You were proven wrong again. Strike two.
Now you claim that what you meant all along was that the article was fully sourced and it was sourced at the time of publication but was faulty because it did not use DFL approved sources.
Strike three. But thanks for playing.
By the way, if you can tell me how I can get a hold of some of this oil company money, please let me know, okay?
Master of Deception Spin on....
Back to page topMaster of Deception
Spin on. It's your speciality. Here are the ethical problems:
1. Your commentary is deceptive because it did not give citations about the people and organizations who disdain global warming theories, nor did you indicate that most are in some fashion backed by big oil.
2. Since 2007 when you commentary was written, and has been closed since then from any activitiy, you continue to hit it up to keep it in the most popular column. Despite the fact that the information is oudated and no longer represents the current findings.
3. This is about doing what's etchically required. A concept sorely missing from the political scene and journalism today, on both sides of the aisle. As a GOP webmaster your objective has not been to tell the truth, but to spin it advantageously for GOP purposes. I've read your attacks on locals that aren't GOP certified. Because you cause damage to people with scurrilous attacks, the information you use should be truthful beyond reproach. Sadly that is not the case. If you were a Democrat and you were maligning the truth, I'd call you on it.
4. You refer to the IPCC, and NASA or NOAA as DFL sources? That's false statement. Greenpeace is an International organization influenced by International policies. Sourcewatch has many of the same citations as Wikipedia. The difference though is that Sourcewatch does not come with as strong a disclaimer as Wikipedia. Anyway, they both indicate that the scientists you chose to cite are all affiliated with the oil industry. The rest of your sources come from conservative leaning opinion sites or Republican sites.
Now you resort to publicly ATTEMPT to uncover who I am despite site rules allowing anonymity. No one has done this before, though there have been other disagreements. It says a lot about who you are and the kind of politics you play.
Vamma The "personal attack"...
Back to page topVamma
The "personal attack" attack as you called it, is a "discussion of an issue." The issue is your methods and tactics. If your only retort is to cry "personal attack!" That's a pretty poor defense.
It's unfortunate that you feel anyone who disagrees with you is "shooting the messenger." That would imply that you are fulfilling some required duty on the behalf of others. Does poor Vamma feel like a scapegoat?
I agree with you that "There's nothing more dishonest than perpetuating unsubstantiated information", and you parenthetically add, "by not providing links." Providing a link to a support ones position doesn't make it true. The link actually needs to provide relevant support, any thing short of that is fraud. The links you offer are often not for citation, but rather for distraction.
It could also be considered dishonest for one individual to post under two different blog names in order to argue their position. You were doing that earlier this year until you got caught. Who's to say you're still not doing this? It could be argued that posting a message using two different name greatly increases the chances that some one "shoots the messenger."
You claim to understand that partisan types have a hard time being impartial or it would seem rational. You indeed are a "partisan type." Congratulations for acknowledging that you have a hard time being impartial or rational. Admitting that one has a problem is always the first step towards recovery.
You responded to my needle-in-the-haystack analogy by claiming, "The Internet is the "haystack" and it allows us to find any needle at fingers' touch." What search engine are you using? If you're so convinced that your positions are true, then why don't you provide relevant and valid proof. With your recent diatribes on Global Warming, you fail to offer some evidence which proves that a) It exists, b) Mankind is the sole significant contributor to climate change, and c) That solar output is a non-factor. (Solar output refers to heat from Sun, that bright orange ball in the sky that keeps us from becoming a planet of ice.)
You assert that "the point is to find the most reliable, non-partisan, non-profit organizations", and suggest we "approach science with more thought, not partisan attacks." Great advice! Of course, I expect that you and Al Gore will be the ones to decide what information is reliable, non-partisan, and based on science. In 2005 in speaking on global warming, Al Gore announced that "the debate is over." Yet today, he continues to profit by speaking out on the issue. What's your motive? Never mind, I forgot, you're only the "messenger."
Do Your Homework.. You are...
Back to page topDo Your Homework..
You are not presenting sourced information; you didn't in your first post and you haven't in your second. You haven't provided links, or substantiated or researched information that comes attached to a reliable source. Let's see what you can come up with. One thing for sure, your opinions don't count.
You're also misstating what NASA said, not what I said. The information comes from NASA. The bone of contention is if there is a human contribution, that's what we are talking about and nothing else. You have not provided sources that refute that, so you are dancing around the real issue: do humans contribute to global warming.
Are you denying NASA's latest findings? You certainly can't deny these findings based soley on your own opinions or the retelling of information that's not sourced or off point. But, it looks like that's what you're doing. That is beyond presumptuous.
The links to NASA and other organizations, together add credibility to these new findings. Neither Peter nor you have provided a defense to your position that's substantiated with sources. Instead you have talked your way into a unpurposeful rant.
Not presenting reliable sources and postulating without backing it up is worthless to any kind of discussion or comparison of information on a topic so highly complex. And it's worthless and a waste of my time.
From now on I will only respond to documented information that is sourced, information that I can look up.
It's obvious I am not speaking on behalf of or representing anything Al Gore said or wrote; I haven't even mentioned his name. I think we all know who has the partisan problem.
NASA, the IPCC and NOAA are reliable sources for information on Climage Change. I sugggest you check them out.
NOAA says, "Separating out the impact of human activity from natural climate variation is extremely difficult. Nonetheless, the IPCC concluded there is a 'discernible human influence' on climate. This means the observed global warming is unlikely to be the result of natural variability alone and that human activities are at least partially responsible."
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/infodata/faq_cat-1.html#12
The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Take a look and come back and discuss your findings.
http://www.ipcc.ch/#
Vamma, Are giving up so...
Back to page topVamma,
Are giving up so soon? The inconvenient truth I provided is that you've allied yourself with the likes of Al Gore. Go to any search engine and type in "Al Gore Lies." I guarantee you'll have sources up your global warmer.
If you want to further emulate Al Gore, set your sights on being United States Vice President! You could be the #2 on the Obama-Vamma ticket. Think of how fun it would be tooling around the country in a solar powered Air Force 2 giving global warming speeches by day, and blogging as the U.S. Fact Checker by night. Mother Earth needs you, heed the call.
Disservice to yourself and...
Back to page topDisservice to yourself and your cause
I really don't want to be unkind, but you are truly doing your cause harm by being so irrational and partisan. I won't respond again to posts so obviously intended to be personal attacks, not a discussion of the issues.
Vamma What exactly have you...
Back to page topVamma
What exactly have you determined to be my "cause?" I can't say that I know what yours is but you've shown yourself to be the epitome of a global warming extremist, just like Al Gore.
Let's try not to descend...
Back to page topLet's try not to descend into personal attacks.
(Karla Wennerstrom is the editor of the Eden Prairie News. She can be reached at editor@edenprairienews.com.)