Fun With Sourcewatch

Say 'hi' to Tom DeWeese
Would you buy a used car from this man?

A Head In The Sand, Is A Head In The Sand, Is A Head In The Sand
...to paraphrase Gertrude Stein...

In case you're wondering, I trawl my google news for headlines.
If it's computer-based, I tend to just skip it, but if it's global warming, I click on it to see the latest news on the issue. Here's today's account. In amongst all the gloomy looking is this little doozy of an ostrich with its head firmly placed in the sand.

It's actually an article saying that Global warming isn't happening; that the people who are campaigning to curb carbon emissions are ideologues in the manner of communists and that we should just dispense with having the entire debate. Now, I understand that the page is called 'Enter Stage Right', so the agenda is as loaded as they come but even so, I thought it would be fun to pick the argument apart. Here's his main argument:

The simple truth is there is no scientific consensus on global warming. In fact, as the media frenzy screams global warming, there are a growing number of scientists who are expressing their doubts.

In 1992, just prior to the UN's Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders signed The Heidelberg Appeal, a quiet call for reason in dealing with the climate change issue. Neither a statement or corporate interests, nor a denial of environmental problems, the Heidelberg Appeal expresses a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world's ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. Today, the Heidelberg Appeal has been signed by more than 4,000 scientists and leaders from 100 countries, including more than 70 Nobel Prize winners.

Also in 1992, another statement from some 47 atmospheric scientists was issued saying "such policies (greenhouse global warming theories) derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. The statement cited a survey of atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, "confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming observed during the past century." The statement went on to say, "We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science."

In 1995, over 85 scientists and climate experts from research labs and universities worldwide, signed the Leipzig Declaration in answer to the International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy, held in Leipzig, Germany that year. In part, the Declaration says; "In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For these reasons, we consider ‘carbon taxes' and other drastic control policies – lacking credible support from the underlying science – to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."

In 1997, a Gallop Poll of eminent North American climatologists shows that 83% did not support the claims of the green house theory of global warming.

In 1998, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) issued a petition for signature by atmospheric scientists saying there is no scientific evidence indicating that greenhouse gases cause global warming. That petition was signed by more than 17,000 scientists and leaders involved in the issue.

Global warming scaremongers have tried to discredit these statements from the opposition, saying either they are too old to be counted in today's debate or that they weren't signed by real scientists. Neither is true. One only has to look at the signers on the documents and statements to know who and what they are. The relevance of the documents can be answered in two ways. First, most of the signers of these documents from the 1990's hold the same positions today. Second, as is the fallacy in the global warming debate, such drastic climate changes, as described in the scaremongers diatribes, would not come about overnight. Though the proponents would have you believe otherwise, 15 years is but a microsecond in the study of the earth's activities.

However, there is great question about the validity of the documents promoted by the global warming crowd. There is strong, documented evidence to show they care little about sound science and facts and much more about their political agenda.

For example, in May of 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the United Nation's report on climate change touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented a draft of its report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. However, when the printed report appeared in May 1996, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body of the report to make it conform to the Policymakers Summery. Specifically, two key paragraphs written by the scientists were deleted. They said:

1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."
2. "No study to date had positively attributed all or part of the climate change to …man-made causes."

That was not the last time data has been manipulated by the IPCC to fit its political agenda. In 2005, a federal hurricane research scientist named Chris Landsea resigned from the UN-sponsored IPCC climate assessment team because his group's leader had politicized the process. Landsea said in his resignation letter, "It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity had been due to global warming." He went onto say, "I personally cannot in good faith contribute to a process that I view as being both motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

In 2006, the voices of reason are speaking out louder than ever. Professor Bob Carter, a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, says the global warming theory is neither environmental or scientific, but rather, "a self-created political fiasco." Carter explains that "Climate changes occur naturally all the time, partly in predicable cycles and partly in unpredictable cycles."

Meanwhile, more than 60 leading international climate change experts have gone on record to urge Canada's new Prime Minster to carefully review global warming policies, warning that ‘"Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause."

In April, 2006, using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions." The study was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. Gabriele Hegerl of Duke's Nicholas Schools of the Environment and Earth Sciences said her study discounts dire predictions of skyrocketing temperatures.

In 2004 the Heartland Institute published a report by Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Dr. Lindzen reported that global warming is unlikely to be a dangerous future problem, with or without the implementation of such programs as the Kyoto Protocol. Lindzen, a member of the IPCC and one of the world's leading climatologists, said that alarmist media claims to the contrary are fueled more by politics than by science.

Said Dr. Lindzen, "With respect to science, consensus is often simply a sop to scientific illiteracy. After all, if what you are told is alleged to be supported by all scientists, then why do you have to bother to understand it? You can simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief, and you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists except for a handful of corrupted heretics."

So why, if scientists are researching the issue and if there is no consensus that global warming is a reality, is this voice not being heard? Why is a near panic building in the news media, on Capitol Hill and in research labs across the nation and in the international community?

Answer: fear and money.

Simply put, scientists know where the grants will come from to pay their salaries. Dr. Patrick Michaels, a leading opponent to the global warming scaremongers, calls it the federal/science paradigm. He describes it this way: Tax $ = Grants = Positive Feedback Loop to Get more Grants.

Did you get all that?
So let's go through this piece of demagogery that can only be said to satisfy a narrow-minded leadership that is hoping like hell that the global warming alarmists are wrong. But to structure this so-called truth, he bends quite a few truths to get to his desired conclusion.

Lets' start with the assertion that not all scientists agree.
For a start, let's look at this assertion that the Heidelberg Appeal somehow says that it is against the global warming case. According to Wikipedia:

The Heidelberg Appeal has been enthusiastically embraced by critics of the environmental movement such as S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. Conservative think tanks frequently cite the Heidelberg Appeal as proof that scientists reject the theory of global warming as well as a host of other environmental health risks associated with modern science and industry. Its name has subsequently been adopted by the Heidelberg Appeal Nederland Foundation, which was founded in 1993 and disputes health risks related to nitrates in foods and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. However, the Heidelberg Appeal itself makes no mention whatsoever of global warming, or for that matter of pesticides or antibiotic-resistant bacteria. It is simply a statement supporting rationality and science.

So that's a far cry from the 425 signatories disputing that global warming is taking place. Rather it was an appeal made for people to exercise their best scientific judgment rather than run to panic. It certainly does not endorse the position that global warming is not taking place.
It is true that in 1992, not all the scientists agreed. That does not mean that they still don't agree in 2006. There's been mounting evidence. One shouldn't be quoting an old scientific position against a new one; that way leads creationism and flat-earth-ism and that would not be a rational position to take.

DeWeese then comments that a separate group of 47 atmospheric scientists signed a statement to the efffect that not everybody agreed. Again, that may have been the case in 1992, but this is 2006. It really hasn't stood the test of time. if those scientissts are still sticking to their guns, DeWeese really ought to be producing those 47 rogue atmospheric scientists today.

Then there is the 1995 Lepzig Declaration DeWeese cites.
Here's Wikipedia again:

According to the SEPP website, there were 79 signatures to the 1995 declaration, including Frederick Seitz: the current SEPP chair. The signature list was last updated on July 16, 1996. Of these 79, 33 failed to respond when the SEPP asked them to sign the 1997 declaration. The SEPP calls the signatories "nearly 100 climate experts".
The signatures to the 1995 declaration were disputed by David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times. In an article on July 29, 1996, he revealed that many signers, including Chauncey Starr, Robert Balling, and Patrick Michaels, have received funding from the oil industry, while others had no scientific training or could not be identified.
The 1995 declarations begins: "As scientists, we are intensely interested in the possibility that human activities may affect the global climate". However, those identified as scientists and climate experts include at least ten weather presenters, including Dick Groeber of Dick's Weather Service in Springfield, Ohio. Groeber, who had not completed a university degree, labelled himself a scientist by virtue of his thirty to forty years of self-study.
In any case, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the list of signatures of the 1995 declaration, as the SEPP website provides no additional details about them except for their university, if they are professors.

Well, that's a highly un-credible 'Declaration'. It's laughable that DeWeese is relying on this bunch of people to bolster his claims of science. But it gets even funnier:

The declaration begins: "As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems, we...". As with the 1995 declaration, questions have been raised about the scientific background of the signers, and others have questioned the degree to which they can be deemed to be independent. Because many of those who signed the 1997 declaration also signed the 1995 declaration, the concerns raised by David Olinger and others after the 1995 declaration are still relevant.
The signers are generally described by Fred Singer and his supporters as climate scientists, although the current signers also include 25 weather presenters.

One key report opposing the scientific credentials of the signers was a Danish Broadcasting Company TV special by Øjvind Hesselager. Hesselager attempted to contact the declaration's 33 European signers and found that four of them could not be located, twelve denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who verified signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an entomologist. After discounting the signers whose credentials were inflated, irrelevant, false, or unverifiable, Hesselager claimed that only 20 of the names on the list had any scientific connection with the study of climate change, and some of those names were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal industry and the government of Kuwait (a major oil exporter).

As a result of Hesselager's report, Singer removed some, but not all, of the discredited signatures. The number of signatures on the document, according to the SEPP's own press releases, has declined from 140 (according to a December 1997 press release) to 105 (as of February 2003).
The SEPP's position is that "a few of the original signers did not have the 'proper' academic credentials - even though they understand the scientific climate issues quite well. To avoid this kind of smear, we want to restrict the Leipzig Declaration to signers with impeccable qualifications." To address the signer credibility issue, the SEPP has provided considerably more information about each signer on their website and lists the weather presenters separately from the other signers.

Would you bet the future of this planet on these people's scientific advice? Is this the kind of rationalism that DeWeese thinks is rational?

Next is this claim that "a Gallop Poll of eminent North American climatologists shows that 83% did not support the claims of the green house theory of global warming."
I've tried googling this claim, and I keep running into this DeWeese guy as the source once again. Or they don't link to this research at all, they just insist it is so.

I did type in "1997 83% Climate" at Sourcewatch and I got this page.
And then, this page drew my attention for some reason. Now why would this page even come up with the combination of words "1997 83% Climate"?
The claim smells like bunkum to me. I think DeWeese simply made up that poll to sound more authoritative. So let's discard that one as being untruthful in everyway until proven otherwise.

Next up, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and its petition. The institute, it turns out to be a bit like The Pond's Institute.
This is who OISM are, according to Sourcewatch.

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000. Best known as a gateway to the Oregon Caves National Monument, it is described by its chamber of commerce as "the commercial, service, and cultural center for a rural community of small farms, woodlots, crafts people, and families just living apart from the crowds. ... It's a place where going into the market can take time because people talk in the aisles and at the checkstands. Life is slower, so you have to be patient. You'll be part of that slowness because it is enjoyable to be neighborly." The main visitors are tourists who come to hike, backpack and fish in the area's many rivers and streams. Cave Junction is the sort of out-of-the-way location you might seek out if you were hoping to survive a nuclear war, but it is not known as a center for scientific and medical research. The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences.

Did you see that name Frederick Seitz in there? Yep, the same guy who came up with the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. So the OSIM isn't an independent source at all, but just another organ fronting for the same interests as the previous dud petitioners.
Here's more on it:

The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.

Robinson's paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. "As atmospheric CO2 increases," it stated, "plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally." As a result, Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener planet:

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as [sic] that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.
In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.

"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist, said researchers "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them." NAS council member Ralph J. Cicerone, dean of the School of Physical Sciences at the University of California at Irvine, was particularly offended that Seitz described himself in the cover letter as a "past president" of the NAS. Although Seitz had indeed held that title in the 1960s, Cicerone hoped that scientists who received the petition mailing would not be misled into believing that he "still has a role in governing the organization."

The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."

There's more, but I'll leave that to your reading pleasure. Now if this OISM doesn't scream "Front Group!!!", I can't say what a Front Group is. So DeWeese is trying to quote the same fraudster twice in separate entries 2 paragraphs apart, sandwiched by a claim he made up himself. Okay! Points for Chutzpah! - No points for rationaility and reason.

The thought that crosses my mind at this point is, why is it that some people know no shame? Like this Seitz guy; how can he live with himself? Or this DeWeese guy for that matter. There's an answer but I'll tell you later.

Anyway, moving right along to his next dodgy redundant claim that these above documents are relevant,
- the fact that these people hold the same positions today is neither surprising nor persuasive towards being rational; especially given that they are the same people running a 'front' for an agenda agenda. They could just be stubborn and stupid - the more likely explanation.
- the claim that the timescale is too short is even more ridiculous when you consider the claim of these people is that global warming isn't happening at all. It is akin to the argument "God doesn't exist, besides, he's stupid?"

But it gets worse. He then cites the IPCC dispute of the evidence that there is enough dispute to say global warming is not happening. Clearly that is a disingenuous logical error; of course unless DeWeese meant to rhetorically arrive at a point that suited his crooked argument.

It runs parallel to the other hoary topic, the teaching of evolution: The fact that there is dispute in Kansas about Evolution does not mean in way shape or form that the Theory of Evolution as science is in dispute, no matter how maany experts testify on behalf of Intelligent Design. What is being disputed in Kansas is the right of the school board to teach Intelligent Deisgn
Similarly, the dispute surrounding the IPCC at worst indicates that people are arguing about the degree of the probleem; not whether it exists outright or not.

Then DeWeese goes on to list arguments by prominent Global Warming sceptics such as Bob Carter at the James Cook Univesity, Qld. Well, Bob Carter seems like a straight man with no interests: he just helps out with drillings for oil.

Carter could better be described as 'a prominent research geologist with a personal interest in the issue of climate change', from his list of research papers. He has extensive experience of paleoclimatic research, including participation in Ocean Drilling Program Leg 181 in the southwest Pacific which described the benchmark 4 million year long, mid-latitude climate record from Site 1119.

Why is it that these people who are all global warming sceptics cantankerous types with links to the oil industry? I mean, why is it these puppet mouthpieces don't bother hiding their strings?
That's a rhetorical question by the way: Bob Carter just knows which side his bread is buttered on and that's his own business. We as proper sceptics should just view his claims with a very dim view.

Then DeWeese cites some study supported by the 'National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration'. Well, the NOAA actually have a link about Global Warming, so they think it's happening - they just don't think humans are the cause. This is from their FAQ Page:

What is the greenhouse effect, and is it affecting our climate?
The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect.

That last sentence does not say, the NOAA deny that Global Warming is taking place. It says they don't know how much of the Global Warming taking place is because of human activity. they're two different things and DeWeese is wrong (as in mistaken, as in incorrect) to cite the NOAA as a body that thinks it is not taking place.

But DeWeese is known to confute the two points.

There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
By Tom DeWeese
There is no scientific evidence to back claims of man-made global warming. Period. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends—be they teachers, newscasters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents—is wrong. In fact, scientific research through U.S. government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling—very slightly—.037 degrees Celsius.

Well, it's one thing to assert that Global Warming is taking place, but that it's not because of human activity; it's most likely WRONG, given the current evidence, but it's a position one could take. It's another thing entirely to claim that credible scientists agree that Global Warming is not happening at all, that it's a piece of fiction conjured up by scared and greedy scientists, which is the thrust of the article of the day. DeWeese would be best advised to get his story straight.
You can't logically have it both ways.

Back to our article of the day. DeWeese then quotes Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Heartland Institute as if it were this great insitution, just because it's called an institute. Again, a bit like the Pond's Institute, it's a front for industry and it turns out it's one for the tobacco companies.

Although Heartland calls itself "a genuinely independent source of research and commentary," its role as a pliant mouthpiece for the tobacco industry can be documented by searching the industry's internal document archives.

Roy E. Marden, a member of Heartland's board of directors, is the manager of industry affairs for the Philip Morris tobacco company, where his responsibilities include lobbying and "managing company responses to key public policy issues," which he accomplishes by "directing corporate involvement with industry, business, trade, and public policy organizations and determining philanthropic support thereto." In a May 1991 document prepared for Philip Morris, Marden listed Heartland's "rapid response network" as a "potential spokesperson" among the "portfolio of organizations" that the company had cultivated to support its interests. [3]

I guess they're worried that all that cigarrette smoke has contributed its fair share of CO2.
Here's a bit on this Dr. Richard Lindzen from Sourcewatch:

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports 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." [3]

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."

So Dr. Lindzen is taking money from the oil interests and he won't stand by his word unless it's a 50-to-1 pay out? So much for the claims of stalwartness that the Global Warming sceptics stand by their signatures. DeWeese would be better off not using this man as a credible source.

Having gone point to point, I have to say this article really is a tawdry piece of trash by DeWeese, and is a pretty sad indictment of people who are trying to wish the Global Warming issue away. I've lost the desire to keep debunking each and every one of his lies. It's so appallingly wrong-headed, it's staggering.

At best he could have cited, say, Global Dimming as an off-setter for the Warming, but no, he hasn't even done his research there. Instead he keeps trotting out the Lindzens and Carters of the world who are in the pay of oil interests or quoting Front Groups who are all fronting for insterests who wish that Global Warming wasn't happening.

As for his 'conclusion' of "Fear and Money"? Doesn't it strike you that the oil industry is the one wracked by fear and that is why they are paying money to corrupt scientists who are willing to cash in their titles in exchange for cash? Isn't it the Lindzens and Carters and Seitzes of the world who are fear-mongering oil companies into giving them cashh to disssemble?

So who exactly is this Tom DeWeese?

The American Policy Center is a far-right wing think tank run by PR man Tom DeWeese.

That's all you get. But if you Google his name, you find such wonderful articles like these:

'SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT' THE EVIL FACING AMERICA

THE CONSEQUENCES OF SURRENDERING LIBERTY TO GOVERNMENT SECURITY

Turns out, he's not just your ordinary far-right nut bar, he's the full fruitloop-crazy nutbar.
It's amazing that his craptacular article even gets such a high listing on Google News, but there you go. Call yourself a president of an American Policy Center and you can look like you actually have some gravitas. People get away with blue murder. DeWeese sleeps easy at night because he has no conscience, knows no shame or embarrassment, believes whatever fiction he chooses to and claim is 'rational' and 'science'; and he's completely insane.

The real reason I went and did this was because I've just listed Sourcewatch as a link on the sidebar. It's pretty cool. Check it out.