Research on Marc Morano's Climate Denier Gang
Earlier in the week we reported that the favored list of climate doubters Senator Inofe's political assistant Marc Morano relies on to stoke the global warming is a hoax echo chamber had been discovered by the researchers at ThinkProgress.
In turn, our research team has taken Mornano's list and added in all of the information we have here on DeSmogBlog about each of the indivuduals and made it into a handy referal page here: Researching Marc Morano's Climate Denier Gang.
We are working to research the individuals on Morano's list that we didn't have information on and will be adding what we find.
This month we're giving away FREE copies Nobel Laureate Dr. Andrew Weaver's new book Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a Warming World.
Go here to find out more details about DeSmogBlog's monthly book give-away.
For those of us truly concerned about this issue, and who have spent the last couple of years reading everything we can on BOTH sides of the issue, the most troubling aspect is what appears to be a concerted effort to stifle debate. It becomes painfully obvious that the largest echo chamber in operation today is the traditional news media outlets who seem to only echo one side of the debate and actively suppress the other.
This is too important an issue, both envionmentally on one side, and economically on the other, to not have an open and honest discussion of not only the science, but also the economic costs.
I already said, this knee-jerk YOU DID IT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! is becoming as old as the Roman Coliseum.
-- bi
LDJones,
You appear to be suggesting that AGW remains a matter of debate - it isn't and to maintain as much is clearly dishonest. When there is such an IMBALANCE in the objective SCIENCE, it cannot any longer be a matter of debate. I note you are not arguing from the science, which is the ONLY legitimate argument. Look at the objective science [a representative sample: no cherry-picking allowed]; Oreskes; or the IPCC; or visit ANY reputable scientific organisation [you choose]. But you could try ANY of these: -
The American Meteorological Society
http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/2007climatechangerelease.pdf
The American Institute of Physics
http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
The American Geophysical Union
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0218am_statement.shtml
National Academies of Sciences
http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change/
As for the media, much of it is in denial about the science, or ends up biasing the output by granting equal time to wingnuts and other denialists, which clearly isn't warranted by the science. There's science about this also:
http://www.desmogblog.com/scientists-bang-on-with-analysis-of-media-muddle
and
Signals and noise: Mass-media coverage of climate change in the USA and the UK
Maxwell T.Boykoff& S.Ravi Rajan
As for the economic costs, the real question is who benefits in the short-term and who pays in the long-term.
Who benefits if we put off action?
The fossil-fuel companies and big energy using industries. You know, the ones mentioned in the IREA letter, or in the Union of Concerned Scientists' report on the connection between the tobacco industry disinformation machine and the big oil denial industry. These are the ones who run the echo-chamber and astroturfing operations, aided and abetted by funding from the neocon wingnuts and those of a similar political persuasion.
Who pays if we put off action?
We all do including the completely innocent future generations. Clearly those who made big money by trashing the climate fully expect they can continue to carry-on screwing the rest of us big time.
While I'm with you on the value of his opinion on climate change, it is a bit disingenuous to list Spencer's primary affiliation as with the Marshall Institute. Whatever other work for right-wing think tanks he does, he is still an active researcher for the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Faculty positions like that are full-time, so that should be what you list for his affiliation. As a counter-example, it is correct to list Fred Singer according to his SEPP project, because he is a "Professor Emeritus" at U. of Virginia, which means that he retired after serving as a tenured professor at that institution, not that he is currently active there.