|
Post by icefisher on May 18, 2009 15:54:42 GMT
Magellan, as usual you read what you want into what I say. What I actually said was that Christy's critics do NOT assume that his research is funded by the oil industry as a cursory internet search will show, and the journo has written that purely to heighten Christy's "victim" status. You can post any hogwash you want to Steve to suit your argument. But your claim is not supported by the facts. Here is the smoking gun with Dr John Christy's file on the Greenpeace project site Exxonsecrets.org a website that attempts to do exactly what you claim nobody is doing. www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903You shouldn't sacrifice your credibility on such an easy challenge to falsify.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 18, 2009 16:21:20 GMT
Magellan, as usual you read what you want into what I say. What I actually said was that Christy's critics do NOT assume that his research is funded by the oil industry as a cursory internet search will show, and the journo has written that purely to heighten Christy's "victim" status. You can post any hogwash you want to Steve to suit your argument. But your claim is not supported by the facts. Here is the smoking gun with Dr John Christy's file on the Greenpeace project site Exxonsecrets.org a website that attempts to do exactly what you claim nobody is doing. www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903You shouldn't sacrifice your credibility on such an easy challenge to falsify. Where on that page is there evidence that... ? Risking my credibility??? That is such a bizarre comment. We're not talking about a key aspect of the science. We're having a discussion about whether or not Christy's critics in the blogosphere claim he is funded by oil money (I can't see that they do). Turning it into some sort of key issue is like suggesting that finding a few "errors" in a film by a politician could somehow undermine the whole basis of climate science.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 18, 2009 16:39:54 GMT
You can post any hogwash you want to Steve to suit your argument. But your claim is not supported by the facts. Here is the smoking gun with Dr John Christy's file on the Greenpeace project site Exxonsecrets.org a website that attempts to do exactly what you claim nobody is doing. www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903You shouldn't sacrifice your credibility on such an easy challenge to falsify. Where on that page is there evidence that... Are you blind Steve? The entire list purports to be "Documenting Exxon-Mobil's funding of climate change skeptics." as stated in the lefthand sidebar. ? Risking my credibility??? That is such a bizarre comment. We're not talking about a key aspect of the science. We're having a discussion about whether or not Christy's critics in the blogosphere claim he is funded by oil money (I can't see that they do). Steve, you said: "Christy's critics do NOT assume that his research is funded by the oil industry as a cursory internet search will show, and the journo has written that purely to heighten Christy's "victim" status." That is an untrue statement. Did you just take this at face value from some AGW blog Steve? It seems you must have. . . .thats pretty damaging to one's credibility if you just take unsupported stuff like that and repeat it. Turning it into some sort of key issue is like suggesting that finding a few "errors" in a film by a politician could somehow undermine the whole basis of climate science. Wrongo! I didn't say climate science was being undermined by such careless statements. I said you were.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 18, 2009 17:20:57 GMT
icefisher,
I used google to see if any AGW blogs suggested Christy had oil funding and came up with nothing. This didn't surprise me, because I don't recall anyone making such a connection. So I felt safe in denying the general allegation that Christy's critics assume he is oil-funded.
Whatever your site is called, there is nothing in the page that suggests Christy is funded by oil money. Christy and certain others are also listed as IPCC authors but noone explicitly claims they are part of the "consensus".
Also the site is not a blog.
When The Great Global Warming Swindle programme was shown in the UK, they played the same trick by alleging that people claimed the sceptics in the show were oil-funded. In that case it was worse because they only asked the question of those who were not oil-funded and didn't ask the ones that did receive money from fossil fuel companies.
It was an analogy; it is not untypical for someone to be hugely condemned here for some off-the-cuff remark taken out of context.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 18, 2009 17:28:41 GMT
icefisher, I used google to see if any AGW blogs suggested Christy had oil funding and came up with nothing. This didn't surprise me, because I don't recall anyone making such a connection. So I felt safe in denying the general allegation that Christy's critics assume he is oil-funded. Whatever your site is called, there is nothing in the page that suggests Christy is funded by oil money. Come On! Your credibility is dying here. The entire blog/project funded by the Greenpeace is to "document" the of funding of AGW skeptics by oil interests and John Christy is listed as a recipient with a dozen entries. The site does not explicity say he received any money but the implication and accusation is beyond question except perhaps by somebody with zero credibility. For a minute there I thought you were going to admit a mistake and salvage some credibility. Guess I was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 19, 2009 1:42:35 GMT
Seems to me that John Christy is listed because he worked with the CEI which did recieve funding from Exxon-Mobile.
It doesn't say the scientists are funded by Exxon-Mobile, just that they worked with front groups that were funded by Exxon-Mobile.
I also have seen no accusations that John Christy or Spencer have recieved funding from oil companies, probably because there is no basis to the claims.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 19, 2009 5:52:18 GMT
I also have seen no accusations that John Christy or Spencer have recieved funding from oil companies, probably because there is no basis to the claims. Gee Socold, how did you arrive at that! You make statements all the time that have no basis in facts.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 19, 2009 10:41:02 GMT
I also have seen no accusations that John Christy or Spencer have recieved funding from oil companies, probably because there is no basis to the claims. Gee Socold, how did you arrive at that! You make statements all the time that have no basis in facts. Neither socold nor I assume that a listing on Exxonsecrets or sourcewatch implies oil-funding. I cannot find any blog posts anywhere that indicates anyone else believes either that Christy is oil funded or that Christy's listing on Exxonsecrets implies he is oil-funded. I have assumed for many years that John Christy was just a genuine scientist trying to do his job to the best of his ability. I found out only after GGWS came out that he was an active lobbyist against "AGW initiatives". I think it is a reasonable hypothesis, nay *theory*, that claiming that Christy is being undermined by false allegations of oil-funding is just journo-fiction. But I do not deny that if you search beyond page 3 of a google search for "John Christy climate oil" you might find something, as I got bored at page 3. Icefisher, if I hadn't drawn attention to the oil thing, would you now be believing so strongly as you appear to be that Christy's reputation is indeed beset by untrue rumours of oil-funding? Or are you just being argumentative?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 19, 2009 11:45:56 GMT
Who freaking cares about the oil money conspiracy stuff? Honestly the FIRST post by Steve in this thread stated that he didn't say the guy took oil money. Socold didn't even post until what, 3 posts back? I'm sure many here have PLENTY of other things to disagree with Steve/Socold about without projecting the frustration of previous arguments against big-oil conspiracy theories onto Steve/Socold.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 19, 2009 15:01:35 GMT
Gee Socold, how did you arrive at that! You make statements all the time that have no basis in facts. Neither socold nor I assume that a listing on Exxonsecrets or sourcewatch implies oil-funding. I cannot find any blog posts anywhere that indicates anyone else believes either that Christy is oil funded or that Christy's listing on Exxonsecrets implies he is oil-funded. I have assumed for many years that John Christy was just a genuine scientist trying to do his job to the best of his ability. I found out only after GGWS came out that he was an active lobbyist against "AGW initiatives". None of that means squat in relationship to your statement Steve. Your statement was the journalist was inappropriately portraying Christy as a victim and that NOBODY was trying to discredit him by saying he is influenced by oil money. That is just plain wrong and you will not admit it trying every single weaselly excuse in the book. Very clearly Greenpeace is attacking him with exactly that allegation and it doesn't matter Steve how far up your arse you want to stick your head. As to just how far Christy's reputation has been tarnished by all to obviously bogus insinuations by the AGW crowd (like getting money for an article in a oil-funded journal - not mentioning the money was donated to charity) is a matter that can only be answered by careful polling of public opinions. It is really telling of your bias that you would actually comment on a single journalist mentioning this and then pretend that a major environmental organization isn't doing exactly what the journalist said was happening and accuse that journalist of overstating the case. That might even be a little true if the accusers were some minor hodunk environmental radical enclave somewhere, but Greenpeace is one of the biggest mainstream NGOs out there. A lot of people latch on to ideas, you are a prime example, of bogus insinuations, bogus models and once convinced are very hard to educate as to the facts on the ground. You take issue with the journal bringing the issue up and educating those who have been misled by Greenpeace and their slimy ilk so that makes you a contributor. You and I can agree he is not funded by oil money and thats fine but that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether everybody else agrees. You seem to have some horrific problems with the logic of sets. Some and all have important differences. If you paid a bit more attention to that you might not be so far off base on so much.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on May 19, 2009 15:25:28 GMT
icefisher writes "As to just how far Christy's reputation has been tarnished by all to obviously bogus insinuations by the AGW crowd "
It is not at all clear that places like desmogblog are actually tarnishing reputations. Being on desmogblog is rapidly becoming a badge of honor for climate skeptics. Those skeptics who are not on desmogblog are complaining that they have been omitted. Apparently, for a small fee, anyone can write to desmogblog, and have someone investigated as to whether they qualify to be included. Some skeptics are contemplating paying a friend to have their name invedstigated.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on May 21, 2009 0:18:27 GMT
Seems to me that John Christy is listed because he worked with the CEI which did recieve funding from Exxon-Mobile. I also have seen no accusations that John Christy or Spencer have recieved funding from oil companies, probably because there is no basis to the claims. Are you kidding?!? Look around a bit, you'll find there have definitely been such accusations. Which is exactly why Christy and Spencer have had to publicly clarify that they have NOT received any funding from energy companies.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 21, 2009 12:25:23 GMT
Seems to me that John Christy is listed because he worked with the CEI which did recieve funding from Exxon-Mobile. I also have seen no accusations that John Christy or Spencer have recieved funding from oil companies, probably because there is no basis to the claims. Are you kidding?!? Look around a bit, you'll find there have definitely been such accusations. For goodness sake, please just put me out of my misery by providing some links.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 21, 2009 13:50:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 21, 2009 14:31:03 GMT
I'm still twitching - this page doesn't mention Christy at all!
|
|