Kopel criticized media for coverage of global warming report, omitted Exxon funding for "independent" research group he touted
Summary: Rocky Mountain News media critic Dave Kopel took Colorado journalists to task for their "excessively credulous" reporting on an international global warming report. He suggested that a Fraser Institute analysis offered a "broader view" of the report, but he failed to note that the group received funding from Exxon Mobil specifically for climate change research.
In a February 10 column, Rocky Mountain News media critic and Independence Institute research director Dave Kopel criticized the Colorado media for their "excessively credulous" coverage of the recently released Fourth Assessment Report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In his column Kopel suggested that readers "looking for a broader view" could turn to the Fraser Institute, which he described as "an independent Canadian research organization." However, Kopel failed to mention that petroleum giant Exxon Mobil Corp. has donated $120,000 to the Fraser Institute since 2003 specifically to address the issue of "climate change."
Kopel wrote, "Denver Post columnist Diane Carman is usually scrupulous about her facts, but not so in last Sunday's column about global warming." He further stated, "Carman also touted the [IPCC] document as a 'consensus interpretation' by 'hundreds of scientists from all over the world.' True enough, but, as noted by The Wall Street Journal on Monday, one reason the government-picked IPCC scientists had such an easy time agreeing with each other was the exclusion of scientists who might disagree, such as Paul Reiter, head of the Insects and Infectious Diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute." Kopel concluded by saying:
Like Carman, most of the other Denver journalists who covered the IPCC were excessively credulous. Readers looking for a broader view could start with the Fraser Institute's new analysis of the IPCC's work, which provides extensive evidence that the IPCC has vastly overstated the degree of certainty about climate change and its consequences. The Fraser Institute is an independent Canadian research organization whose self-described mission is to analyze the "impact of competitive markets and government intervention on the welfare of individuals."
But in touting the Fraser Institute, Kopel failed to note either its conservative positions on public policy, including global-warming skepticism, or the fact that it has received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp. In 2003, Exxon Mobil reported donating $60,000 to the institute as part of the company's "Public Information and Policy Research" giving, specifically for the area of "Climate Change." In 2004, Exxon Mobil donated another $60,000 to the institute for the same purpose.
Furthermore, the Board of Trustees listed in the Fraser Institute's most recent annual report, for 2005, included Jim W. Davidson, managing director and CEO of the Calgary-based energy investment firm FirstEnergy Capital Corp.; Gwyn Morgan, then-CEO of EnCana Corp., North America's largest independent producer of oil and gas; and R.J. Pirie of the Canadian petroleum producer Sabre Energy Ltd.
From Dave Kopel's February 10 column in the Rocky Mountain News, "Climate report too quickly embraced by journalists":
Denver Post columnist Diane Carman is usually scrupulous about her facts, but not so in last Sunday's column about global warming. According to Carman, the recent, highly-publicized report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "is not a political document."
Yet the very name of the group tells you that it is produced by governments. As the IPCC's Web site details, IPCC scientists are picked by governments (or by organizations which have been approved by governments), and IPCC drafts must go through two stages of "peer review" by government bureaucrats.
Many government leaders, such as France's Jacques Chirac, have gained political advantage in hyping global warming, and subordinate bureaucrats would be foolish to risk their careers by challenging the official orthodoxy.
Carman also touted the document as a "consensus interpretation" by "hundreds of scientists from all over the world." True enough, but, as noted by The Wall Street Journal on Monday, one reason the government-picked IPCC scientists had such an easy time agreeing with each other was the exclusion of scientists who might disagree, such as Paul Reiter, head of the Insects and Infectious Diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute. Reiter writes that policy advocates have fabricated a connection between malaria and global warming.
Like Carman, most of the other Denver journalists who covered the IPCC were excessively credulous. Readers looking for a broader view could start with the Fraser Institute's new analysis of the IPCC's work, which provides extensive evidence that the IPCC has vastly overstated the degree of certainty about climate change and its consequences. The Fraser Institute is an independent Canadian research organization whose self-described mission is to analyze the "impact of competitive markets and government intervention on the welfare of individuals" (www.fraserinstitute.ca).
—C.H.
Comments (13) Show
1 - 13 |
Kopel was basically saying there's been a change in the rules of everyone's favorite game. Nowadays, ExxonMobil trumps Rock, Paper, and Scissors.
Who pays the piper, calls the tune. Fraser accepts big oil money and sings their old sweet song. What does Kopel have for brains ?
Media Matters sings Tim Gill's tune. What's the difference? Don't see it disclosed anywhere on this site. Except in the search engine where other people, usually those attacked here, bring up his name. Hypocrisy! All these organizations have to get their money from somewhere.
You do noble, lonely work Spongy. Where would the far-right ideologues be without dutiful and credulous footsoldiers such as yourself carrying their water? It amuses me to see and hear willfiuly blind individuals adamantly deny scientific consensus concerning climate change. Go back to your voodoo dolls and tea leaves. Leave the scientific debate to the truly qualified. Buh-Bye.
And it amuses me to see the term "scientific concensus concerning climate change" used by irrational, emotional demagogues who ignore the facts staring them in the face: There ISN'T a scientific concensus on the causes of global warming. The "facts" that are put out by those, like you, who believe they are gosphel, keep getting blown out of the water by real-world observations and data.
To be clear: I am also not willfully blind. I try to keep an open mind about global warming and the effects man MAY have on it. I'm even willing to pay increased taxes to terraform the planet if we have to do it to save ourselves. It's far too early to, like you have done, reach a conclusion and then reverse-engineer the science to make the facts fit your theory. Try going the other direction with it for a while...
"Only Al Gore could go to China."
Actually, the scientific community by and large agree with the prevailing view that climate change is a result of human activity. So, I don't see how accepting the conclusions of the study of this phenomenon by the vast majority of scientists is irrational. It seems perfectly sane. I won't deny that there are fringe "scientists" plagued by shoddy practices making dubious claims concerning climate change. Unfortunately almost without exception we find that these few are either funded by corporate interests (such as ExxonMobil) that have no motivation other than short-term profit or political mouthpieces looking to further their personal aims. Just because these people exist you feel justified in claiming that there is no "consensus." Hmm, I guess you could say then, that if the U.S. Senate passes a bill by a vote of 95 to 5 that once again, there is no consensus. That's simply ridiculous.
One other thing-- I don't see where I was getting emotional in my earlier post. Amusement at the antics of lapdogs doesn't send me into an emotional frenzy. Ciao.
Not to write an epic here, but I thought this was something that could lighten the mood:
HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM HEARING NOTICE Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ETThe Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?” The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later. DC WEATHER REPORT:Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning. Total ice accumulation between one half to three quarters of an inch. Brisk with highs in the mid 30s. North winds 10 to 15 mph...increasing to northwest 20 to 25 mph in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent.Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.
Hey windbag, who cares. Look up the meaning of the word brevity in the dictionary. Idiot.
Only after you look up the word "ad hominem," Mister Poopy Pants.
Yes, that would come just before ad nauseum, as in your comments...
Seriously, do you have anything of SUBSTANTIVE or FACTUAL value to respond with? I do not wish to engage in endless meaningless banter with you.
There are those out there, with real power to wield over our lives, who treat climate change like it's a religion. The same irrational people that believe the President is trying to shove God down their throat, in complete contradiction to the facts, (name ONE instance in this country where someone isn't allowed to practice whatever religion they wish, short of human sacrifice I suppose) will then turn around and say, "You MUST believe in man-made climate change! If you don't you're just like a holocaust denier! (says Maureen Dowd) Even though China is a far, far worse polluter than the U.S., it's all your fault, Mr. and Mrs. America. We know what's best. You all must live your lives the way WE want you to live them."
That's a lot closer to a theocracy than anything the President does. I say no thanks.
Now I suppose NEOCONBASHER will insult my mother. But I welcome any intelligent debate.
Might I remind you, Spongeboob, that it was you who first attacked me when I bashed that loser Raj Cholhan, for whom you apparently have some sort of fatal attraction. I don't care to discuss any topic with you, nor do I have to justify my postings on this site to you. In fact, you are irrelevant to me. I just enjoy smacking you around verbally because you are so smackable...and pompous...and self-important. When you can mind your own business and not mine, perhaps we will reach equilibrium. In the meantime, get back on your medication for bipolar disorder.
So let's see NEOCONBASHER, you post comments in a public forum, and then get upset because people "don't mind their own business," read what you have to say, and respond to your silly personal attacks that have nothing to do with the issue that's being discussed. Why post at all then? Just to spew your venom to yourself for your own personal satisfaction? Do you think you have ANY credibility by only hurling personal insults? Let's review: Idiot, loser, Spongeboob, (very original) smackable, pompous, self-important, and bi-polar. All within just two posts. Very impressive. And all of these words have what, exactly, to do with global climate change or the money that's used to study it?
As far as Raj Chohan goes. It is my opinion that he is a fair, unbiased and ethical reporter. I offered you evidence to support my claim, you offered nothing but personal ad hominem and vulgar attacks. Gee, what a surprise. Thanks for proving my point.
I suggest you try to follow LINDENBULLY'S example. he at least makes a rational argument that one can engage. And my apologies for not writing more clearly above, sir. I did not mean to imply that YOU were emotional in your post. I would agree that you were not. But you can't deny that some of the loudest mouthpieces out there, especially in the Al Gore camp, are largely driven by their emotions. Those emotions override rational thought. Here's a brief example to back up my claim: (are you paying attention NEOCONBASHER?)
In the much talked about UN Report regarding climate change released last weekend, they claim a projected temperature increase in response to CO2 reaching 560 parts per million, twice the level in 1750, as 3.5C in the 2001 report. In the 2007 report, that figure is down to 3C.
These numbers refer to a period of over 350 years. From 1750 - 2100. These numbers have also been revised progressively downward from the same values issued in three previous reports dating back to 1990. In just 17 years, they've revised their estimates for the 350 years down FOUR times. If that trend continues, according to the UN's OWN FIGURES, we'll all freeze to death before the year 2100. This is not my opinion, I'm just using the numbers in the report and a simple mathematical equation.
The Report also uses terms like "confidence intervals" and "radiative forcing" throughout to make the numbers crunch like they want them to. Again, not my opinion. They admit to using these techniques in their own report. And with all that number fudging, they even admit, but in not so many words, that although there is a measured increase in carbon dioxide concentrations, global temperatures have NOT risen since 1990.
Finally, and I apologize for writing an epic here, I feel justified in the use of the word "concensus" because I can back it up with fact: The UN, with 2000 scientists participating in their report, is considered the core of a concensus within the pro-climate change community. On that, I hope we can agree. I just demonstrated that even THEY say that global temperatures are not rising based on data back to 1990. That is in contradiction to what the mainstream media is reporting! The sources they use, a small but vocal body of politicized scientists, bureaucrats, and lobby groups say "Global warming is happening! We've only got ten years left!" How can you call that relationship a "consensus?"
1 - 20 |