California "skeptical" of skeptics

Wed, 2006-08-02 16:18Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

California "skeptical" of skeptics

The National Post, Canada's second national newspaper, ran a column today written by Steve “the Junkman” Milloy. The guest editorial attacks the State of California's request for General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and the Association of Automobile Manufacturers to disclose financial payments made to many of the more notorious climate change “skeptic.”

Milloy, a climate change “skeptic” himself,  is appalled that such documents should be exposed, and it sounds like GM et al. will be this fighting this one tooth and nail.

While Milloy is trying to spin this as an attempt to “silence the skeptics,” reporting of funding sources by scientists is also a matter of full disclosure and allows a fuller context to the information the public uses to make decisions on important issues like climate change.

Comments

The way I read the article you linked to, the state wants documents dealing with “tactics” of the “skeptics,” not financial payments. The article you linked to does not mention anything about payments one way or another.

The request from the State of California reads:

All DOCUMENTS relating to both GLOBAL WARMING and to any of the following individuals: S. Fred Singer, James Glassman, David Legates, Richard Lindzen, Patrick J. Michaels, Thomas Gale Moore, Robert C. Balling, Jr., Sherwood B. Idso, Craig D. Idso, Keith E. Idso, Sallie Baliunas, Paul Reiter, Chris Homer [sic], Ross McKitrick, Julian Morris, Frederick Seitz, Willie Soon, and Steven Milloy, including but not limited to:

1. All DOCUMENTS relating to any communications between YOU and these individuals, and

2. All DOCUMENTS relating to YOUR relationship (or the relationship of any automobile manufacturer or association of automobile manufacturers) with any of them, including but not limited to payments directly or indirectly from YOU or any other automobile manufacturer or association of automobile manufacturer to any of them.

You are right. It does say they want that. I wonder how it could be relevant. What’s the point of law under question in the lawsuit?