[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 14, 11:33 am, Eeyore
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The inaugural founders of the coalition we

Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing
Climate Centre in China.................. "

See, they even have an IPCC man.

Why is it the EVERY single one of these groups also has a "consultant
to energy companies" on board? EVERY single one? EVERY SINGLE ONE?
Isn't that odd? I mean, what are the odds of that?

"Brian Leyland, MSc , FIEE, FIMechE, FIPENZ, an Electrical and
Mechanical Engineer specialising in power generation and power
systems, now a power industry consultant."

Why the hell shouldn't they have an energy expert on their panel ? It seems perfectly
natural to me.

Why would that be necessary to review and discredit the "nutters" who
are basing AGW on poor science and politics?

Good peer review involves (scientists of) all disciplines. The idea that certain scientific
disciplines should be excluded from even discussing climate is plain barking mad. Of course
the 'climatologists' would doubtles like to keep all discussion with their cosy little
cabal.

I have not seen one site on either side that includes veterinarians. I
also have yet to see an automotive engineer. Have you seen a
histologist? Or an OB/GYN? LOL!

Why are you so afraid of allowing scientists other than those explicitly working in a
narrow field to examine the claims ? I conclude that the climatologists make such a fuss
because they have something to hide. Mainly sloppy work IMHO.

Where did I say that? There's no fear whatsoever. Your thinking that
there is is yet another example of your bias.

What I question is why power companies have representation on EVERY
SINGLE site that claims to have "proof" discrediting AGW. You don't
think that's at all odd. I do. In fact I think that's very odd. So be
it.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

What I question is why power companies have representation on EVERY
SINGLE site that claims to have "proof" discrediting AGW. You don't
think that's at all odd. I do. In fact I think that's very odd. So be it.

Why do you say it's odd? I think Poopie would have us believe it's only
a coincidence. He also wants us to believe that all people who have
training in any science are equally qualified to evaluate the data
underlying GW theories. I wonder if he believes chemists are a good
source for vetting claims that dolphins are intelligent, or if the
opinions of physicists are useful in determining the safety of food
additives.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Shhhh! said:

What I question is why power companies have representation on EVERY
SINGLE site that claims to have "proof" discrediting AGW. You don't
think that's at all odd. I do. In fact I think that's very odd. So be it.

Why do you say it's odd? I think Poopie would have us believe it's only
a coincidence.

In some cases it may be a coincidence but I can see that energy people can have
a perfectly legitimate interest in climate issues too


He also wants us to believe that all people who have
training in any science are equally qualified to evaluate the data
underlying GW theories. I wonder if he believes chemists are a good
source for vetting claims that dolphins are intelligent, or if the
opinions of physicists are useful in determining the safety of food
additives.

On that subject, I'd likewise value your opinion of the suitability of the
following wrt climate science. They are the Board members of
environmentaldefense.org. Why so many non-scientists ?


Board of Trustees

N. J. Nicholas, Jr.
Chairman
Investor

Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D.
Vice Chair
Wayne & Gladys Valley Professor of Marine Biology, Oregon State University

Robert W. Wilson
Vice Chair
Investor

Arthur P. Cooley*
Secretary
Expedition leader and naturalist, Lindblad Expeditions

G. Leonard Baker, Jr.
Managing Director, Sutter Hill Ventures

Rod A. Beckstrom
Chairman and Chief Catalyst, TWIKI.NET, Inc.

James W. B. Benkard
Senior Counsel, Davis Polk & Wardwell

Sally G. Bingham, M.Div.
President, The Regeneration Project

Shelby W. Bonnie
Co-founder, CNET Networks

W. Michael Brown
Independent business consultant and investor

Norman L. Christensen, Jr., Ph.D.
Professor of Ecology, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences,
Duke University

Lewis B. Cullman
Chairman Emeritus, Chess-in-the-Schools

Ann Doerr
Philanthropist

Stanley Druckenmiller
Chairman and CEO, Duquesne Capital Management

Roger Enrico
Chairman, DreamWorks Animation, SKG; former Chairman and CEO, PepsiCo, Inc.

Kirsten J. Feldman
Advisory Director, Morgan Stanley

Carl Ferenbach
Managing Director, Berkshire Partners LLC

Jeanne Donovan Fisher
True Love Productions

Lynn R. Goldman, M.D., M.P.H.
Pediatrician; Professor, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public
Health

Robert E. Grady
Managing Director, The Carlyle Group

R. Jeremy Grantham
Chairman, Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment; Chairman,
GMO

Charles J. Hamilton, Jr.
Partner, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP

The Honorable Thomas H. Kean
Chairman, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Arthur Kern
Investor

Frank Loy
Former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs

Susan Mandel
Community Advocate

George G. Montgomery, Jr.
Senior Advisor, Seven Hills Group

David O'Connor
Managing Partner, Creative Artists Agency

Signe Ostby
Advisor, Center for Brand and Product Management, University of Wisconsin at
Madison; Director, The Intuit Scholarship Foundation

Stephen W. Pacala, Ph.D.
Petrie Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; Director of the Princeton
Environmental Institute, Princeton University

Robert M. Perkowitz
Managing Partner, VivaTerra LLC; President, ecoAmerica

Lewis S. Ranieri
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Ranieri & Co., Inc.

Julian H. Robertson, Jr.
Founder and Chairman, Tiger Management, LLC

E. John Rosenwald, Jr.
Vice Chairman, Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.

David J. Roux
Co-Chief Executive, Silver Lake

Peggy M. Shepard
Co-Founder and Executive Director, WE ACT for Environmental Justice

Douglas W. Shorenstein
Chair and CEO, Shorenstein Properties, LLC

Adele Simmons
Vice Chair, Chicago Metropolis 2020; President, Global Philanthropy Partnership

Sam R. Walton
President, Restoration Works LLC

John H. T. Wilson
Advisory Director, Morgan Stanley

Paul Junger Witt
Partner, Witt Thomas Productions

Joanne Woodward
Artistic Director, Westport Country Playhouse

Charles F. Wurster, Ph.D.*
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, Marine Sciences Research Center,
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Honorary Trustees

Roland C. Clement
John W. Firor, Ph.D.
Gene E. Likens, Ph.D.
George M. Woodwell, Ph.D.*

*Founding Trustees
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=365


What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in my book.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie yammered:

Why do you say it's odd? I think Poopie would have us believe it's only
a coincidence.

In some cases it may be a coincidence but I can see that energy people can have
a perfectly legitimate interest in climate issues too

The only "interest" I can think of is exactly the one that's already
been bruited: Discrediting the global warming data so that the theories
are discredited, leading to less enthusiasm for renewable energy
sources. That is the scenario ascribed to energy producers, and it's
quite credible, at least if we're talking about oil and gas companies.

Is that what you meant by "legitimate"?

He also wants us to believe that all people who have
training in any science are equally qualified to evaluate the data
underlying GW theories. I wonder if he believes chemists are a good
source for vetting claims that dolphins are intelligent, or if the
opinions of physicists are useful in determining the safety of food
additives.

On that subject, I'd likewise value your opinion of the suitability of the
following wrt climate science. They are the Board members of
environmentaldefense.org. Why so many non-scientists ?

I don't know. Did you read their mission statement or their funding
sources? My read tells me they're a clearinghouse for information on
renewable energy sources, not lobbyists or propagandists. Perhaps you
can point to some indicator of another conclusion.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in my book.

I might have missed something, but since when is the membership of the
BoD the issue? The signatories to "Scientific Studies" are where the
real credibility lies. The site you found doesn't propound an ideology.
Why don't you read what's on their page titled "Strong Science Guides
Our Work":

http://environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1429

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 14, 3:35 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Poopie yammered:

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in my book.

I might have missed something, but since when is the membership of the
BoD the issue? The signatories to "Scientific Studies" are where the
real credibility lies. The site you found doesn't propound an ideology.
Why don't you read what's on their page titled "Strong Science Guides
Our Work":

http://environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1429

Or why doesn't he comment on the "smoking gun" memos which prove that
a conspiracy to discredit the science of AGW on the part of the energy
companies does indeed exist, which is why I linked to the
Environmental Defense site in the first place?

Instead we got a rant from him on the fact that there are no
"genyooine" scientists on the BoD.

And, of course, a comment on poultry sauces. LOL!