But how many AGW folks are funded by environmental interests? This is a two-way street, and correlation does not imply causation; that is, one must consider that Milloy was a skeptic before he was funded by those amicable to his views.

Why does it matter who he is paid by, junk is junk

Agreed - either the facts Dr. Milloy presents are true, or they are not.

I'm not surprised that 'conclusion of the study represented a "compromise" between the study's disagreeing authors' - the UN IPCC reports represent the same sort of compromise. This is the way AGW science works - 'let's agree to agree' rather than 'let's test this theory'.

Let's also not forget that Milloy blamed the fall of the World Trade Center on removing asbestos from the building. Even the most ardent anti-environmentalist isn't pro-asbestos. This guy takes extreme to a new level.

He also believes second-hand smoke isn't harmful. He's lumped in with Fred Singer as quacks who aren't taken seriously.

Vostok ice cores show that atmospheric CO2 concentration lags temperature, which is consistent with the fact that seawater outgasses more CO2 at higher temperatures.

The concept that CO2 is the driver of Malinkovich cycles has absolutely no scientific basis. It is utterly ridiculous.

Antarctic sea ice has once again beaten the maximum all-time record today.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg

No cover stories in Newsweek. No speeches on the floor of Congress, no statements from the UN. I guess they need to figure out how to blame cooling on warming.

Remember - right wing money is inherently evil. Left wing money is nothing but purity and light. If you look closely you can see a halo around it.

And SourceWatch is funded by Left Wing foundations such as the Tides Foundation (isn't that Theresa's Foundation?), Turner Foundation (we all know where Ted's political affiliations lie), Foundation for Deep Ecology (a quote from their website, Present assumptions about economics, development, and the place of human beings in the natural order must be reevaluated.), and this one is a real winner, Schumann Center for Media and Democracy.

Here's a list of who they fund:

Adbusters
American Corn Growers Association
Center for Food Safety
Center for Media & Democracy
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Chefs Collaborative
Dakota Resource Council
Dakota Rural Action
Earth First!
EarthSave International
Environmental Media Services
Environmental Working Group
Farm Animal Reform Movement
Farm Sanctuary
Foundation on Economic Trends
Greenpeace
Humane Society of the United States
Idaho Rural Council
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Institute for Social Ecology
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Mothers for Natural Law
National Center on Addiction & Substance Abuse
Natural Resources Defense Council
Northern Plains Resource Council
Organic Consumers Association
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Powder River Basin Resource Council
Public Health Advocacy Institute
Ruckus Society
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
SeaWeb
SHAC
Sierra Club
Tides Foundation & Tides Center
Turning Point Project
Union of Concerned Scientists
United Poultry Concerns
Waterkeeper Alliance
Western Organization of Resource Councils

And a quote from their activists page: "Anarchism has got a really bad rap, like communism"

- Ruckus Society director John Sellers, writing in the New Left Review, July-August 2001

And last but not least, guess who funds the Tides Foundation? None other than the Open Society Institute founded and funded by George Soros.

Golly, who'd of thunk that George would be involved in something like that?

But at least their not funded by the evil ExxonMobil, just the evil George Soros. Go figure.

Brett,

You're link isn't to the story but to a SourceWatch hit piece on Milloy. May want to change that.

Reply: thanks Paul, I will correct that. That was sloppy. It is now corrected.

I'd actually like to take a look-see at the story.

Patrick,

Do you completely dispute the theory that increases in CO2 concentration lead to increases in temperature? If you partially agree and partially disagree, please list some of the individual problems you havewith the notion.

Thanks

Mark - this is off-topic, but the toxicity of "second-hand smoke", i.e., environmental tobacco smoke, is an issue of dosage, as it is with so many things. I am not aware of any studies linking environmental tobacco smoke with any adverse health effects other than at massive levels of exposure, say, those who lived with smokers for many decades.

But this is besides the point - if you can demonstrate Dr. Milloy is falsely attributing these quotes to Dr. Veizer, please do so. Otherwise, why waste your breath and the space in this blog?

cmbclean,

Increased CO2 probably leads to higher temperatures. It is a question of degree. All CO2 IR absorption bands are already nearly saturated and overlap with much more abundant H20. Clouds can't be modeled accurately and have a huge impact on the balance of EMR.

The climate model prototypes are very immature and not worthy of the press and policy attention they receive. The whole thing is driven prematurely by a paranoid fear of "what if we are right" and "tipping points" and other unsubstantiated nonsense.

Mark:
Let's also not forget that Milloy blamed the fall of the World Trade Center on removing asbestos from the building. Even the most ardent anti-environmentalist isn't pro-asbestos. This guy takes extreme to a new level.

Asbestos would have adhered to the steel beams better, protected them from heat better and possibly would not have blown off in the explosion.

He also believes second-hand smoke isn't harmful. He's lumped in with Fred Singer as quacks who aren't taken seriously.

As Tom correctly points out, normal exposure in the home or workplace to SHS yields increases of health disorders that are statistically insignificant.
Given enough money, anyone can make a molehill into Everest.
Do any of you AGWers get ANY of your news from other than the MSM?

Just to note: Milloy is a paid advocate for certain oil and tobacco companies.

I expect to see a note on pro-AGW items stating they are funded by vast unlimited sums of taxpayers money if you don't mind Brett.

Patrick,
I am no atmospheric scientsit. However, I have read that the saturation of CO2 is not as much as you claim. The same article claimed that the fact that H2o overlaps most of the same bands is not really significant. This is because there is very little water in the upper atmosphere, which is wnere most of the heat is lost to space. CO2 is not nearly as confined to the lower levels. The implication is that the increased levels of CO2 would trap more heat in the upper regions of the atmosphere, reradiating it back down to earth. The H20 overlap would not that much of an issue.

My source is http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/#more-455

If you listen to skeptics atmospheric co2 is at 380 ppm, acording to accountants like Nick Stern its as high as 430ppm and MSM have put it at 390...400 and 410.
What is the true figure?

cmbclean,

All evidence indicates that the upper atmosphere is cooling. This is inconsistent with the explanation you quoted from real climate.
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/media/archive/1385.jpg

Note this other post on real climate which is in direct contradiction to the one you linked.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=58

They want to have it both ways. 1. CO2 causes the upper atmosphere to warm. 2. CO2 causes the upper atmosphere to cool. What a farce.

Oh, the denialists, they do so love to make things up, with tobacco as with climate. I recalled a recent big media splash about second-hand smoke, and sure enough this was my first search result. However did Tom and Chris miss it? Too much Rush Limbaugh and too little reality, I suspect. BTW, Tom, Milloy is no "Dr."

Some of you people in here have to stop talking about how second hand smoke was once thought to be harmless. OK! It's getting really annoying. It has nothing to do with the climate and I don't see your point! Knock it off, stick to THE TOPIC!
Stick to the climate debate, ok? People learn as time goes one. And one day they will find out that AGW was a lie.

There is no discrepancies in those links, Patrick. Both state that a warming troposphere due to increased CO2 should lead to a cooler troposphere. You may want to actually read your links before you post them.

Steve Bloom - this is the problem with relying upon google searches as scientific research. I am well aware of what the Surgeon General's opinion is. I stated that I am not aware of any studies that have linked environmental tobacco smoke to adverse health effects in anything other than massive levels of exposure. If you or the Surgeon General can direct me to such studies, I would be grateful.

Now I will say no more on this matter, but I felt the need to respond to Steve Bloom's insults.

Patrick does seem to have point out awhoel in their argument. I, too have read about the attribution of AGW for the stratosphereis cooling. However, if most of the heat is actually being trapped in the upper atmospere, then why isthe stratosphere colling? Perhaps the realclimate authors meant to saythat the "not zone" so to speak, is the upper troposphere, and not the upper atmosphere. If so, the article doesn't explain itself very well. Is there anybody on here that's more well-versed in atmospheric science that might help us sort this out? Brett, do you have any idea?

For Patrick and anyone interested, I just read some of the comments to that real climate article
arging against the saturation idea. If you scroll down to comment number 6, you will see a question asking just what I just asked on my last post. I'm not sure if completely uderstand the answer. I'm hoping some of you guys will read it to.

I'm repeating the link to the article.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/#more-455

a warming troposphere due to increased CO2 should lead to a cooler troposphere

Mark,

Doesn't get much weirder than that.

cmbclean,

I read both realclimate articles and it sounds to me like they are largely making it up as they go along. The comments about the stratosphere being cool due to "excess radiation" make no sense. Warm objects radiate more infrared, cooler objects radiate less.

They seem very confused, and the number of reader and self corrections and strikeouts in their text bears this out.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=58

I find this truly humorous, I have not blogged, or been on this site for about a month. Come back and find the same crap as when I left. Patrick outlining fallacies of AGW theory, Mark blaming the right for everything wrong, and the rest of you going back and forth.

What catches my eye though is the same thing many of you already commented upon, why the huge inconsistency of pointing out Milloy is paid for by BIG OIL and BIG TOBACCO? After many weeks of asking the "LEAN" of a particular article, and only hearing about the "right" side, I gave up. It is clear to me that this site has a definite agenda. Maybe you present the facts and let us decide, but there is a strong subliminal message that skeptics are to be inherently distrusted.

I guess this must be the ying to the main ACCUWEATHER side yang. I get the sense that the core of ACCUWEATHER as a company is skeptical of AGW, but here it seems to be the other way round.

Maybe you present the facts and let us decide, but there is a strong subliminal message that skeptics are to be inherently distrusted.

Darren, I'd like you consider two hypothetical scenarios:

1. The science is neutral, each side is cherry-picking factoids that support its position, and this blog has a secret bias in favor of the AGW position, and

2. The science overwhelmingly supports the pro-AGW position, the great majority of the few remaining contrarian voices are paid by corporations that benefit from the public "fear, uncertainty and doubt" created by the anti-AGW posture, and this blog has a "bias" that accurately reports the prevailing science.

What observations would you use to distinguish between these two scenarios?

I offer, for example, the question of which side of the argument the comments and commentators published here come from. Are the denialists/contrarians proportionally more or less represented here than in the "mainstream media" and professional literature, and what might that say about the effect of any bias of this blog? What effect do the thread-starters posted here have on this balance?

In addition, please bear in mind that this blog -- like the great majority of commercial web-based sites -- exists to generate revenue for Accuweather. That revenue is directly proportional to the traffic of these pages.

I'd like you to consider the following question: what strategy is more likely to increase traffic (and therefore revenue) to this site:

A) Reflect the pro-AGW stance already seen in the professional literature, and reflect the consensus position already adopted by the overwhelming majority of climatologists and the mainstream media, or

B) Inflate controversy by advocating a "fifty/fifty" split between pieces that represent the views of the contrarian/denialist community (a relative handful of climate scientists) and pieces that represent the overwhelming majority of climate scientists?

In short, if there is a systemic editorial bias here (I quite explicitly credit Brett with being as neutral as any editor can be), what is that bias and how would we discern it?

I know how I interpret the results of these speculations -- I wonder what inferences you draw.

Hi Guys,

Nice one Brett. Next time tell us funds the other side so we can have the illusion of balance. Reply: I tried for the Architecture 2030 group, but I could not find anything. Brett

I haven't blogged for a while and come back to this. Look Mr. Milloy's opinions are just that. If you refute his data then do. If you can't then just keep up the attacks like usual.

The science overwhelmingly supports the pro-AGW position

BT,

Perhaps you are confusing science and funding? Or science and hysteria?

I like the story of Goldihansen (Patrick,