Busted on the out-of-date SourceWatch info -- the last 13 years would be correct.

But if out-of-date references bug you, how, for example, do you feel about Balling treating a 13-year-old quot from Dr. Roger Revelle as if it is relevant today or reflects Revelle's current position (which it clearly does not)?

Balling also uses two other references to the last (five-year-old) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, notwithstanding the widely publicized updates on questions such as the link between climate change and the intensity of recent hurricanes.

So, as you may gather, I have considerable disagreement with what Balling wrote, but quibbling through details of his argument only plays into his hands -- "proving" that there is a "debate" about the science of climate change.

As to whether Balling was "eager" and not just willing to accept money from big energy firms and then come up with "scientific" arguments that defend their interests, that was a clean kill; I was leaning on the language and your criticism is well taken.

But the fact remains, if you remove from the public "debate" everyone who is taking or has taken money directly from big energy, well, you'll find your debating partners disappear in droves.

Most of Singer's denial publications are 10 to 15 years old and were published in the Washington Times.

I respect what you wrote here. Most people would not have owned up to errors, esp. "leaning on language," a phrase worth remembering.

As to updates on the link between hurricanes and human activity, I agree there have been some, but would not agree they are conclusive, as you imply. Denials notwithstanding, there actually are many vibrant debates in climate science and related fields, and the degree of influence, if any, of human activity on hurricane frequency and intensity is definitely one of them. If all is known already, why would scientists devote their lives to studying these things?

Finally, your statement about Dr. Roger Revelle has me perplexed. It seems to me Balling was saying Gore cherrypicked among Revelle's views, and you're leveling a similar charge against Balling, implying Balling cherrypicked Revelle's old views against "Revelle's current position." Are there two Dr. Roger Revelles? Because if there are not, Balling couldn't cite "Revelle's current position" - he died in 1991.

Sorry about duplicate post - software said "page not found" the first time, so I tried it again.

Appreciate the intelligence about Revelle - gone but not forgotten.

I'm curious, though, about this notion that scientists are toeing the party line in order to ingratiate themselves with intrusive politicians who are champing at the bit to implement anti-social climate legislation. Last I checked, the Republicans had a death grip on the Executive and Legislative branches of the U.S. government -- and their policy is to challenge climate change science on every front.

It seems to me that if a no-account scientist was really keen to get unearned government support, said scientist would be producing work that took issue with climate change, thereby earning the approbation of the current president. Such a scientist might even bump the fiction-writing Michael Crichton from his position as George W. Bush's expert-of-choice.

I respect what you wrote here. Most people would not have owned up to errors, esp. "leaning on language," a phrase worth remembering.

As to updates on the link between hurricanes and human activity, I agree there have been some, but would not agree they are conclusive, as you imply. Denials notwithstanding, there actually are many vibrant debates in climate science and related fields, and the degree of influence, if any, of human activity on hurricane frequency and intensity is definitely one of them. If all is known already, why would scientists devote their lives to studying these things?

Finally, your statement about Dr. Roger Revelle has me perplexed. It seems to me Balling was saying Gore cherrypicked among Revelle's views, and you're leveling a similar charge against Balling, implying Balling cherrypicked Revelle's old views against "Revelle's current position." Are there two Dr. Roger Revelles? Because if there are not, Balling couldn't cite Revelle's current position" - he died in 1991.

Anyone perplexed by this Balling/Revelle/Gore story might want to examine the sworn testimony of one S. Fred Singer at the following site: http://home.att.net/~espi/Cosmos_myth.html

Balling didn't cherrypick Revelle's old views, because Revelle didn't write that Cosmos article to which Balling refers.  And Balling knows that Revells didn't write it, because Balling himself was a participant in S. Fred Singer's ploy to hoodwink Revelle shortly before Revelle's death.  It was a nasty, disgusting and secret business.  Its purpose was to undermine Gore.  It has been incredibly effective, as Singer, Michaels and Balling have successfully fed this story to a plethora of secondary bloggers who are happy to add their echo to the rant.

Crandall and Singer's chapter in the Hoover volume, published online is a mass of misinformation.  I encourage anyone interested to examine the primary evidence and draw their own conclusions.

coming from the relatively neutral standpoint of a young student (sorry for the corny introduction of myself), I would like to ask you where you attained the knowledge that Balling and Singer plotted against Revelle and Gore by forging an article of Revelle before the time of his death. I am not proposing any competitive implications, I simply enjoy checking sources. Thank you.

Alex, the source is directly from Fred Singer, in his sworn testimony. See: http://home.att.net/~espi/S-F-Singer_Deposition.pdf

This evidence is at the web site "The Cosmos Myth: The Real Truth about the Revelle-Gore Story". See in particular Singer's deposition at page 67 and page 125, where he acknowledges Balling's contribution to the drafting. Singer admits he cannot recall any contributions or feedback from Revelle during any of the drafting, but there were numerous contributions from Balling, Michaels, Lindzen, Ellsaesser and Nordhaus. Previous to this group act, it is documented that Singer, Balling and Michaels had meetings hosted by factions of the energy industry focused on "public relations", which was the cover for an intentional misinformation campaign to sway the views of the public, journalists and the U.S. Government. "Plotted" is your word, Alex. My impression is that the evidence may support such a characterization. JL

We'll stick with the consensus view on climate change that has the backing of every Science Academy of the G8 countries (and most every other developed nation) rather than the outlier conclusions of skeptics like Balling.

As far as the Sourcewatch link, we just like linking to them and raising awarness of the great work they are doing (FYI desmog readers, we will shortly be posting a great interview with John Stauber on the subject of PR and climate change).

The work and the words on our site are based on the in-house expertise of Ross Gelbspan, renowned author and journalist. Ross has spent more than a decade studying and writing on this movement that works to confuse the public on climate change. Check out his site: www.heatisonline.com for more on Balling and the other scientists that have received money from oil and coal interests.

I meant to use this link to the Science Roundtable for global warming enthusiasts who might like to read something on the other side of the issue. TCS Daily : Science Roundtable

And BTW, might it be possible that government scientists are interested parties insofar as they get paid by governments, some if not all of whom (the politicians, not the scientists) might be interested in the increases in government power which might result from panicky citizens accepting their authority to take more of their money and/or freedom to face that Great Global Warming Threat?

We got all panicky over the Threat of Global Terrorism enough to pass legislation that has destroyed our Bill of Rights and Constitution. Talk about who wants what kind of power.

And your money? It's all going down a rathole called Iraq, and will soon go down a rathole called Bailing Out The Lenders. But you're scared about losing--what, exactly?--to efforts to curb GW? The tax cuts that go to the richest one percent of Americans, who do not invest it in jobs or ensuring pension plans, bu who promptly lock it up offshore or deposit it in CD accounts? Your freedom to get off a "do not fly" list? Your freedom to challenge the Secretary of the Treasury if he thinks you're "at risk of committing" a terrorist act, once all your assets are confiscated? That can happen NOW, Einstein. And you're all whiney and upset about some future possible infringement on your fatheadedness.

I can't even THINK of a GW action that would be as deleterious to the ideals and freedoms of America as the GWOT has, in the hands of GW deniers like Bush and Cheney.

God, you are SO stupid you can't even see the REALIZED threats that have already taken your precious freedoms and money away. You are so sucking stupid it leaks out like a foul gas.

I agree that bills past after the chaotic "terrorism" scare have contradicted many of our foundational u.s. rights and rights as human beings, that is indeed poop in our area of dining. However, I do not believe your methods of persuasion are entirely effective. Your discrediting claims of stupidity on the other's part along with your assumption of his failure of realization are not very convincing at all considering you don't actually know him. You did a much better job appearing as a faceless internet bully than an intellectual with a persuasive opinion. After all this is a forum based on a scientific debate (yes, debate, believe it or not because when scientific communities debate, it actually builds on the knowledge basis of the given subject for all sides) not a smack-talk forum.

sorry, i must include this spelling correction of myself to improve clarity: i meant to say "bills passed" not "bills past". oops

You might find this interesting.  It seems the global warming "deniers" (that was a real word in the Middle ages, but then it referred to French coins!) are not the only ones blowing public relations smoke!  Poor Justin Lancaster - another Gore casualty! The Revelle-Gore Story

Revelle has been dead for fifteen years, so he has no more recent opinion!  The thesis of his last work, which Gore tried to besmirch, that global warming was not likely to cause such severe consequences that it required immediate and drastic government actions, is still current among many climatologists. Therefore it is not outdated. 

You might find this interesting, actually, if you are curious to Balling's shenanigans behind the scenes.  http://home.att.net/~espi/Cosmos_myth.html

Balling once boasted to me in a hearing that his fancy suit was paid for by the energy industry.