Famous Global Warming Skeptic Scientist admits "40 percent" of his funding comes from Big Oil

I just posted this in another thread, but feel it deserves it's own post.

A lot of supposed conspiracy theorists around here continue to ignore the FACT that so much of the skeptical side of Global Warming comes from scientists who are directly tied to the fossil fuel industry, the same way Big Tobacco companies funded all sorts of scientific studies in the 70's and 80's claiming that smoking was not harmful to your health.

Other people seem to want to think this is all some sort of lame excuse the AGW fanatics made up to save face.

Well - now comes one of the most well known Global Warming skeptics, Pat Michaels (one of the few who's an actual climatologist I might add), admitting on camera that a big portion of his funding comes from Big Oil:

(skip ahead to 6:45 if you want to hear the juicy part)



Here's a transcript of what's said:

Fareed Zakaria: Right, but people say that you're advocating also for the current petroleum based industry to stand pat, to stay as it is, and that a lot of your research is funded by these industries.

Pat Michaels: Oh no, no, no...first of all - what...what I'm saying is -

Zakaria [interrupting]: Is...is your research funded by these industries?

Michaels [shrugging it off, staring at the floor]: Not largely. [stuttering] The...the...um, fact of the matter is -

Zakaria [interrupts again]: Can I ask you what percentage of your work is funded by the petroleum industry?

Michaels: I don’t know. 40 percent? I don’t know.

I like how he considers 40% not a "large" amount. Oh, and when he says "I don't know" - how much do you want to bet he's definitely not overestimating that number?

I also expect some people will try to claim it's not a big deal because the guy is entitled to his funding, and only scientists who support AGW get funding from the government. Well fair enough - but if you want to make this politically charged claim from one side of the fence, but feel it's completely justifiable to ignore it from the other side - I believe that's called hypocrisy.

...
Also take note that apparently even the oil funded skeptics are finding it hard to deny the reality of man-made global warming, at least without letting the last shreds of their professional credibility go out the window:

(at around 2:41)

Michaels: It's very clear that the planet's warmer than it was, and that man has something to do with it. What you're concerned about is the magnitude and the rate of the warming.

More info on Michaels:
From Sourcewatch.org
Exxon Secrets


Other related ATS threads:
Oh About Those 32,000 "Leading Scientists" Against Global Climate Change.
Major Global Warming Denial Movement Linked Directly to ExxonMobil: PROOF




[edit on 16-8-2010 by mc_squared]

It wouldn't surprise me if you are right.

I'm not sure I'm educated enough to have a valid opinion on man-made global warming, but I lean against it - maybe that's what Big Oil wants the majority of people to do, be uneducated and lean against the notion of man-made global warming.

I also can't help but to think that a Carbon tax BENEFITS oil companies because it allows them to earn the same profits, by increasing their prices in adjustment to cost/tax, while selling less product thus decreasing overhead.

I wish we would utilize the wireless tranmission of energy and harness solar power from satellites. Or set up the infrastructure for converting H2O into Hydrogen and Oxygen and utilizing the energy produced by burning hydrogen. If the oil companies would put in the investment (they're probably the only ones with the capital to do so) to create these infrastructures, they could lean us off fossil fuels and look like heroes for doing so - maintaining their customer base.

Just my two cents.

You can believe that the vast majority of the worlds leading Climatologists are correct about Global Climate Change and still think the carbon credits are a lousy way of dealing with the problem.

None of this really matters in the end. The Ice age is coming, nothing will stop it. All of this will be MOOT. People will be wishing to go back to the time when we were worrying about "global warming"

Warming=Ice Age and it's not picky on who or how the warming was caused!

reply to post by AllexxisF1


Thank you !!

What I've been trying to say for a long time now.

Okay, here we go.

First, ALL the raw data was lost on the temperature.

NOW all the NOAA data has been proven to be WORTHLESS.

When is the tree ring data going to be proven to be manipulated.

OH THAT'S RIGHT, it has.

Now, where were we?

Where is the DATA again?

What about the ice cores? Still waiting for THAT to come out.

Although I'm not so sure I believe in man-made global warming, I do believe that "Big Oil" has had a part in spinning propaganda against the idea. Not really healhty skepticism so much as propaganda. This news doesn't really surprise me, as I suspected as much.

It's not as if the truth really matters anymore. The truth has become "besides the point" and the people have become so dumb and ignorant, it's almost funny (or would be if it wasn't so tragic) to sit back and watch the masses herded this way and that. Somewhere at some point, the truth has been kicked out of the mix, at least with almost everything political and or important to our existence.

--airspoon

[edit on 16-8-2010 by airspoon]

reply to post by mc_squared


Even so, this doesn't implicate that ExxonMobil is looking for him to deny Global Warming with false claims. In fact ExxonMobil has invested over $5 billion in as many years to alternative sources:

We currently employ more than 16,000 scientists and engineers – about a fifth of our global workforce – who contribute to the development and deployment of new technologies throughout their careers. And over the past five years, we have spent more than $5 billion in technology and applications.

... and ...

Prior investments included:

1. The investement of more than $100 million in Controlled Freeze Zone (CFZ) technology, which can make carbon capture and storage more affordable.[87] That would reduce the environmental impact of oil and gas.

2. The company has developed a lithium-ion battery for use in electric and hybrid cars[87]

3. Hedging against the development of a hydrogen economy, the company has developed an on-vehicle hydrogen generation system[87]

In July of 2009 Exxon announced a $600 million investment in producing biofuels from algae. The investment involves a partnership with a biotechnology company, Synthetic Genomics. $300 million will be used for in-house studies, while the additional $300 million will be allocated to Synthetic Genomics based off meeting research and development milestones.[88]

Source 1

Source 2

Seeing as ExxonMobil is so heavily vested in sources other than oil, what do they stand to gain?

[edit on 16-8-2010 by misinformational]

Originally posted by AllexxisF1
You can believe that the vast majority of the worlds leading Climatologists are correct about Global Climate Change and still think the carbon credits are a lousy way of dealing with the problem.

Exactly. And I think that's what most people would find out about us "warmists" - if they actually tried to talk to us instead of just calling everyone brainwashed and making manbearpig jokes.

We need to all start talking about this problem in the right way - educating each other and separating fact from fiction, and then figuring out a way we're going to solve this problem without being exploited. But to do that people have to first acknowledge there really is a problem - instead of ignoring it because Big Oil and Glenn Beck said so.

reply to post by misinformational


Because oil is a non-renewable resource: meaning if you control it you control the people who depend on it. This is why wars are fought over it.

The only reason Exxon is investing in alternative sources is because even they know this isn't going to last forever - all the climate change denial they fund is to just cause confusion and delay the eventual turnover as long as possible so they can keep making crazy amounts of $$$$$ on the cheap, dirty, easy system the have now.

They don't want to give it up - but they still know eventually they're gonna have to.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Okay, here we go.

First, ALL the raw data was lost on the temperature.

NOW all the NOAA data has been proven to be WORTHLESS.

When is the tree ring data going to be proven to be manipulated.

OH THAT'S RIGHT, it has.

Now, where were we?

Where is the DATA again?

What about the ice cores? Still waiting for THAT to come out.

See, and this is a perfect example of all the propaganda that gets thrown around. These people spew it out and you guys soak it right up and start passing it off on internet message boards like it's fact.

NO they did NOT lose the raw data - this is a total MYTH:

Conservative media hype misleading report suggesting CRU destroyed raw climate data

reply to post by mc_squared


Something to consider:

The atmosphere now contains 800 billion tonnes (Gt) of carbon as CO2, soils vegetation and humus contain 2,000 Gt carbon in various compounds, the oceans contain 39,000 Gt and limestone, a rock that contains 44 per cent CO2, contains 65,000,000 Gt carbon.

The atmosphere contains only 0.001 per cent of all carbon at the surface of the Earth and far greater quantities are present in the lower crust and mantle of the Earth. Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere must be taken into perspective.

Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day.

Source

[edit on 16-8-2010 by misinformational]

reply to post by misinformational


Sorry but this is just another oil industry funded lie:

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?


You can find a whole laundry list of these lies on skepticalscience.com

Originally posted by favouriteslave
None of this really matters in the end. The Ice age is coming, nothing will stop it. All of this will be MOOT. People will be wishing to go back to the time when we were worrying about "global warming"

Warming=Ice Age and it's not picky on who or how the warming was caused!

We are currently living in an Ice Age, it's called the "Quaternary Ice Age."

Right now we are in an "interglacial period" of the ice age. During interglacial periods, the earth is temporarily warmed and glaciers melt away.

Within Ice Ages you have "glacial" and "interglacial" periods.

Occidental petroleum is the forth largest oil company in the world.

Occidental's coal interests were represented for many years by attorney and former U.S. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., among others. Gore, who had a long-time close friendship with Hammer, became the head of the subsidiary Island Creek Coal Company, upon his election loss in the Senate. Much of Occidental's coal and phosphate production was in Tennessee, the state Gore represented in the Senate, and Gore owned shares in the company. Former Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. received much criticism from environmentalists, when the shares passed to the estate after the decease of Albert Gore Sr., and Albert Gore Jr. was a son and the executor of the estate.[17][20] Albert Gore Jr., however, did not exercise control over the shares, which were eventually sold when the estate closed

en.wikipedia.org...

the best way to control the opposition is to be the opposition.


[edit on 16-8-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by mc_squared


That is a blog... Certainly not a credible source of peer-reviewed information.

[edit to add:] Wasn't it you that stated, and I quote:

See, and this is a perfect example of all the propaganda that gets thrown around. These people spew it out and you guys soak it right up and start passing it off on internet message boards like it's fact.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by misinformational]

reply to post by misinformational


that blog also sources all of it's information and provides direct links to the peer-reviewed papers and actual data it gets it's info from.

cheers.

reply to post by mc_squared


Here's some scientific statements we should all consider (if nothing else, read the first one):

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada

There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University

global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland

There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done.

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences

We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. [T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed.

American Institute of Professional Geologists

The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared to address those impacts. It is also recognized that climate change will occur regardless of the cause. The sooner a defensible scientific understanding can be developed, the better equipped humanity will be to develop economically viable and technically effective methods to support the needs of society.

The American Association of State Climatologists

Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system.... The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate... Finally, ongoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change. Considerable potential exists to improve policies related to climate.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by misinformational]

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Okay, here we go.

First, ALL the raw data was lost on the temperature.

NOW all the NOAA data has been proven to be WORTHLESS.

When is the tree ring data going to be proven to be manipulated.

OH THAT'S RIGHT, it has.

Now, where were we?

Where is the DATA again?

What about the ice cores? Still waiting for THAT to come out.

Heh kinda bizzare and it made me chuckle that a poster with the name Saltheart Foamfollower has that sort of stance on the subject of global warming.

Considering the name is from a character of a Giant, from a race, from a fantasy world where everyone is basically the ultimate example of an environmentalist (to the point where even burning wood or breaking stone is considered a heinous crime against nature). Might I suggest a name change to Fleshharrower, or Raver?.. or maybe even Lord Foul?

Kinda pointless, but it was such an odd juxtaposition

As to the OP, I dont think its surprising to anyone really... its just that they go about ignoring the connections some scientists have since doing so lets them use the evidence from said scientists to validate their own point of view. Both sides do it. But we all know just how rotten Big Oil is, so those that choose to align with em to get money grants must be of a similar bent?

[edit on 16-8-2010 by BigfootNZ]

reply to post by mc_squared


Ah yes, and here is a statement about your reference blog, skepticalscience.com:

John Cook might be skeptical about skeptics, but when it comes to government funded committee reports, not so much.

The author of “skeptical science” has finally decided to try to point out things he thinks are flaws in The Skeptics Handbook. Instead, he misquotes me, shies away from actually displaying the damning graphs I use, gets a bit confused about the difference between a law and a measurement, unwittingly disagrees with his own heroes, and misunderstands the climate models he bases his faith on. Not so “skeptical” eh John? He’s put together a page of half-truths and sloppy errors and only took 21 months to do it. Watch how I use direct quotes from him, the same references, and the same graphs, and trump each point he tries to make. His unskeptical faith in a theory means he accepts some bizarre caveats while trying to whitewash the empirical findings.

In the end, John Cook trusts the scientists who collect grants funded by the fear-of-a-crisis and who want more of his money, but he’s skeptical of unfunded scientists who ask him to look at the evidence and tell him to keep his own cash.

Have a look yourself: skepticalscience.com debunked. Note that the author herself is a scientist.

[edit to remove statement that Joanne Nova is a climate scientist. As NathanD pointed out, she is a molecular biologist]

[edit on 16-8-2010 by misinformational]