Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

I received a response in mail from someone who attended this university, that it is not Bucknell as an entity bringing the speaker on global warming to campus, but rather the Conservatives Club. This person claims that the reason multiple sponsors are posted with it in the media, is that it is common practice and encouraged to ask for funding for events from multiple sources, and that the requests are rarely ever turned down. Be that as it may, he is still being allowed to deliver a speech specifically targeting Al Gore on their campus, and his ties with the oil industry per information available were not disclosed to the public. Therefore, I took the advice of this person who I did thank for contacting me and sent my letter off with a couple of minor revisions to the Bucknell Conservatives Club. Their email address is at the link below if anyone wants to join me.  

http://www.bucknellconserva tives.org

by LadyInBlack on 09/02/2006 04:52:03 PM EST

Firstly, my apologies to Bucknell University, as I misconstrued the media report I based my letter on regarding who invited this speaker. However, my other original comments stand. This was a response I received from the Conservative Club along with my response to them. If only a real debate in this country could be launched on this topic across the political spectrum without "special interests" and partisans holding sway. But alas, I just don't think that is going happen as long as corporations that put profit over people hold sway over policy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear (my name removed by me),

Thanks so much for your interest in our upcoming lecture by Dr.Lindzen. I just wanted to clarify a few things.

First, Dr. Lindzen is being invited by a student group, the Bucknell University Conservatives Club, the University itself did not invite him (although in the interest of academic integrity and debate the speech has been cosponsored by
the Bucknell Environmental Center and Environmental Studies Department).

Second, the purpose of the talk is to help correct many of the popular myths about global warming, and also to provide a point of view on global warming that isn't heard in popular media outlets (most famously, Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth). It also will give students a chance to debate and discuss this critical issue. Hearing men like Dr. Lindzen is exactly what college ought to be about.

Finally, and most importantly, Dr. Lindzen is not a shill for anyone. You speak of us attacking men (I wonder what attacks to which you are referring), and then hypocritically go after Dr. Lindzen. Dr. Lindzen by the way is a bit more credible on this issue than Mr. Gore. Dr. Lindzen's credentials include serving as a lead author on one of the IPCC reports you cite, serving on the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change, serving as a consultant
to NASA, teaching at MIT and Harvard, among others.

Global warming is a serious issue that ought to be discussed and debated by serious men. Dr. Lindzen has proven himself to be one. After accusing 20 year-old students of being spokesmen for "factions within this dark political
process that place profit over human life," for bringing a scientist to campus, I hardly think you qualify for a remotely similar degree of respect.

I hope you'll be able to make it down to Bucknell to see students and faculty
discussing and debating this issue with a respected member of the scientific
community.

Sincerely,
Dominic
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
My response follows:

Mr Rupprecht:

I did not attack Mr Lindzen. That is what he did to Mr. Gore in the Wall Street Journal, and what I am sure he will do at your university based on the title of his address that specifically mentions Mr. Gore and no one else. I stated information about his ties to the oil industry that is trying very hard to discredit Mr. Gore 's movie because they are afraid that the truth of human induced climate change by the burning of fossil fuels reaching people may eat into their golden parachutes. And it would appear that Mr. Lindzen is a part of their disinformation team.

Can you refute this?

"Dr. Lindzen was a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's report. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive, and has testified multiple times before Congress.

Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration."
From the second link in my letter.

Do you know what the Leipzig Declaration states? It is in essence a manifesto for the oil companies, and one of its members was also a consultant for the RJ Reynolds Tobacco company... and it was the tobacco companies which also lied for years about the dangers of smoking and that it was not addictive while people were dying, which was also revealed to be a lie.

Therefore, since Mr. Lindzen takes consulting fees from oil companies in payment for his opinion regarding climate change, and also belongs to the George C. Marshall Foundation which this year got a grant from the EXXON Education Foundation (EXXON being the company that paid for that ridiculous penquin video to attack Mr. Gore on You Tube,) I don't consider him a respected scientist. And since you failed to even address this in your response to me, my claim that by your having him speak there that you too are then part of the political/corporate forces that place profit before people stands.

However, I will agree with you about one thing. The issue of the climate crisis is one that should be debated- by serious people, not just men. And that is why I wrote the letter to begin with because based on Mr. Lindzen's ties to the very industry waging this disninformation campaign against Mr. Gore and his movie and the fact that his address specifically targets Mr. Gore, I question his motives. And Mr. Gore most certainly has enough experience on this topic to have made a movie and written a book about his thirty years of knowledge regarding this issue that has been corroborated by scientists at the IPCC, NSA, the IPCC, and NASA. Perhaps if you could see past your own political bias you would see that. Have you even seen the movie? Has Mr. Lindzen?

If I believed Mr. Lindzen sincerely believed the jury was out regarding anthropogenic climate change and wished to discuss it in addressing the entire scientific community on his own, all well and good. However, based on the information provided which you did not dispute or refute, he is paid by oil companies to give this opinion simply to preserve their profits and profit himself at the expense of truthful discussion and to discredit a man who does have years of experience on this issue rather than work towards a solution. I don't have to respect anyone who does that. The evidence is clear that higher levels of CO2 (in part human induced) are causing a rise in temperature that if unchecked will have cataclysmic results if we do not take action now. I hardly see where him attacking Mr. Gore is doing anything in working towards taking that action.

However, thank you for your response.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

by LadyInBlack on 09/02/2006 11:42:00 PM EST

A month or so ago I watched about three hours of a hearing on Global Warming and came away with these observations.

First, the main witness against global warming was a statistician who had a problem with some of the statistical arcana associated with the research.

The second problem the naysayers had was that the peer review process was flawed because articles were only submitted to other climatologists and experts in the disciplines actively studying global warming. They suggested that the same forty people showed up   over and over again in the peer review lists creating a kind of echo chamber.

One of the congressional skeptics suggested their should be a few religious leaders on the peer review lists.

Another skeptical witness had a BS in geology with a layman's interest in the subject. He said that because he has read a few books on the issues involved he, too should be included in the peer reviews.

Finally, Smokey Joe Barton dropped by and made a laughing stock of the entire hearing, both by joking about the seriousness of the issue and how if things were as serious as the science indicated it was too late to do anything anyway, so why worry. These comments showed a lack of integrity, attentiveness to truth, and plain stupidity on his part, which reduced the hearing to a joke. Of course, here in Texas, we understand Barton does not represent Texans, he is the Congressional representative of TXU, the power and gas utility serving most of north Texas.

The Democrats were right on target wqith their questions, but of course the questions asked were quite often given evasive or non-sensical answers. It was all very frustrating.

I was utterly amazed at the willful disregard of evidence in favor of ideology in these hearings.

by GeneG on 09/04/2006 10:42:00 AM EST