::sigh:: ok fine. Let us entertain for a moment the idea that this may be serious journalism.
This article, on the blog of an Oklahoma politician who 6 days ago was threatening to filibuster to block a cap and trade energy measure, leads with quotes from one Lord Christopher Monkton, who says that "the UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC." Link one in the article follows this statement and appears to be intended to bolster it. It is a press release by this very same gentleman, who is essentially whining that the IPCC has not acknowledged his role in allegedly pointing out certain errors in its report. How this squares with his contention that the IPCC is not worth troubling with is left to the imagination of the reader. This press release is posted on a website called Frontiers of Freedom, a think tank based in Fairfax VA funded by Exxon-Mobil and founded by one Sen. Malcolm Wallop, a Heritage Foundation fellow who was on the board of directors of El Paso Energy. http://www.secinfo.com/dRa2f.3v.d.htm A long-time aide is now an executive with GE. http://www.wyomingbusinessreport.com/article.asp?id=89821 Shall we say -- peer-reviewed: not. But let us Google Lord Monkton. We find many of the same quotes on the usual right-wing rags (Canada Freee Press, CNS et al) and a tantalizing mention of the gentleman's belief that "persons with HIV should be locked away for life." http://www.georgetownnews.com/articles/2007/11/22/opinion/opinion01.txt This would generally be more than enough for me right there, but onwards. Lord Monkton is offended that the committee "refused (his) credentials." This mind you from someone who has apparently dismissed all credentials as socialism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton%2C_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#_note-brown Back to the allegedly peer-reviewed links: Link 2 is to Bloomberg, a respectable publication but not peer-reviewed, and no doubt looking for a skeptical spin in view of its business readership. Note that the skepticism about carbon credits is expressed by a trader. Bottom line -- some attendees tried to buy carbon offsets. Link 3 is to an article on the same Inhofe blog. Link 4 is to a David Evans paper.on icecap.us. Let's just say that it shows no sign of peer review. David Evans is a C++ programmer working on a word processor. Link 5 is to a press release on blogspot. It does not link to the article it refers to, perhaps because the cited Dec 2007 issue appears to contain nothing of the kind. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/116844649/issue Link 6 is to a personal blog, http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002586.htm. The pdf it links to appears genuine, except it claims to be an aricle in the 2007 issue of a magazine which Wikipedia says has not existed by that name since 1980. Hmm. If anyone wants to pay $9 to investigate further, I am curious about that. Could be wikipedia. It's worth noting though that even if the article's genuine, it's written by a physicist and a mathematician. Link 7 is to the same personal bog, which links to the icecap site noted above. The article it links to does claim to be from a journal which exists; however the table of contents for that month from that journal does not contain that title. I also can't find any mention of peer review in the information for authors on the website. http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewJournalContents.do;jsessionid=1466133091159F76AB9D0A46E63945ED?journalCode=JD&viewBy=date&year=2007&month=Dec&sortBy=pubDate Note that even if genuine, the article is written by an economist and a Cato Institute shill who was admitted receiving funding from Western Fuels. But why stop there. Link 8 is to a different blog. The article it links to is on a site whose about us says it "funded primarily by annual dues from its member companies , which collectively produce more than 90 percent of the pulp and paper and a sizeable fraction of the wood products manufactured in the United States." Peer-review -- not. Agenda -- yes. The next link is also to the Inhofe blog, which also cites the Journal of Geophysical research which has not existed as such since 1980. At this point I think I have more than done my due diligence, and conclude that this Senator is either disingenuous -- I wonder how many campaign contributions he received from interested parts? -- or he needs new fact checkers. Dana On 12/11/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are lots of links in the article to peer-reviewed papers that are > beginning to come out and directly contradict the notion that carbon > emissions have any effect on the atmosphere: > > http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:248267 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
