Saturday, February 03, 2007

A CBC interview we'd love to hear...

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released a report warning that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” the cause is “very likely” man-made, and the menace will “continue for centuries.”

The Fraser Institute will be releasing its own assessment of the IPCC report this coming Monday and we are joined in the studio this morning by the Fraser Institute's Dr Shill."

"Good morning, Dr Shill."
"Good morning."

"I read recently that VP Dick Cheney is a fishing buddy of Mr Walker, president of the Fraser Institute."
"Yes, that's correct."
"Has Dick Cheney ever accidentally hooked him in the face with a fish hook?"
"I'm sorry?"
"Never mind.
Dr Shill, I'm reading the policy page on the Fraser Institute website, and I see that while the Fraser Institute is keen to join the US Ballistic Missile Defense program and is very much in favour of coal-fired power plants and deregulating business, it does not support unions or minimum wage controls or universal healthcare or the old age pension plan or firearm registration or settling treaty rights with aboriginal peoples or corporate capital tax.

Also, and again I'm reading this right off the Fraser Institute website, your policy page on Environment states :

"A survey of key indicators of environmental quality in Canada shows that the vast majority -- 84 percent -- have improved relative to the 1970s and shatters the common misconception that environmental quality is deteriorating. "

"Well, these are all very complex issues..."

"Then let me ask you something simple.
Are you aware, Dr Shill, that the Fraser Institute has received $120,000 from ExxonMobil over the last three years? Or that Kenneth Green, formerly the Fraser Institute Director of the Centre for Studies in Risk and Regulation and now with the American Enterprise Institute who also receive ExxonMobil funding, last year offered $10,000 payments to any scientist who was willing to provide an "independent" analysis of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?"




"Dr Shill?............Dr Shill?..........."

Hats off to DeSmogBlog for many above links.

UPDATE : While I was sleeping...
http://www.cbc.ca/aih/latestshow.html
CBC does it! Well, very very close.
Interview with Kenneth Green, author of the $10,000 letters, and another with a scientist who declined to accept that offer. Good job, CBC.

http://pacificgazette.blogspot.com/2007/02/greenhouse-gashouse-gang.html
Ross calls The Fraser Institute out for being an American Enterprise Institute "farm team". Heh.

10 comments:

RossK said...

Hmmmmmm......

What's this, from the last paragraph of that Guardian piece on the Green-assisted shillduggery by the AEI:

"On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming."

Now just what 'Exxon-funded organization based in Canada' might that be one can only wonder?

Sheesh.

Remember the days when all we exported to the Excited States were comedians and news readers?

RossK said...

Apologies Alison--missed your reference to the FI's little astroid-belted spincycle coming on Monday at the top of your post.

btw: I'm assuming you have been checking out the work of their pointman on this one, Dr. McKitrick.

Alison said...

RossK : Well I have now!

Professor Steve Shroeder, the scientist interviewed in the real CBC broadcast I linked to in the update above, mentioned that before Kenneth Green moved from the Fraser Institute to AEI, he was with the US-based "Reason Public Policy Institute", who also, duh, get Exxon funding.

In his interview, Green didn't deny climate change - he just thought regulation was bad for business, or as he put it : "No interference in energy markets, it's bad policy to restrict greenhouse gases".

I have no problem with the free marketeers pimping their grubby little opinions in public, but why does the media continue to refer to them as "climate scientists"?

Anonymous said...

"Has Dick Cheney ever accidentally hooked him in the face with a fish hook?"

LOL!

skdadl said...

Well, the Guardian story referred to Tad Murty as a "former scientist," which gave me a good giggle. I don't know whether that's Murty's self-description or the Guardian's label for him, but it strikes me as a wonderfully absurd category.

Great post, Alison.

RossK said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
RossK said...

Alison - agreed re: the grubbing.

But let's take this latest opinion (which not long ago, as you have pointed out, was quite different in that C02 was the 'breath of life') at face value.....

Wo, if we all agree that human generated greenhouse gases are, indeed, causing climate changes that are threatening the environment on a global scale, then how could any of who are reasonable people not also agree to call for regulation.

After all, if somebody decided to build a nuclear powerplant in Dr. Shroeder's, or Mr. Green's, or even William Kristol's backyard, I'm sure that even they would want the regulators to step in and ask the very nice nuclear folks to remove the deadly radioactive waste from their back porches.

Regardless, the other thing to keep in mind here is that pimps running rackets that make them $40 billion a year always like to have their employees work both sides of the street. Thus, I think we will find (and as Desmogblog has already demonstrated by fisking the pdf) that the pointman for FI's little shill party will, indeed, be saying that the data upon which the IPCC based it's conclusions is flawed. This, of course, is laughable in the extreme given this.

.

Mes Amis said...

Isn't it strange how the media has conditioned us to accept the dodgy 'funded by' in lieu of the more accurate 'works for' or 'paid whore of'.
When it comes to the unquestionable authority of this high priced help we so often give up common sense and accept their judgments from on high.
Good dig Alison, we need those rocks turned over more often or the public will continue being led by the nose.
Questioning my authority? The nerve of her!
You must have given a few teachers gray hairs ;)

Alison said...

Skadl : Likewise your own on this.

Mes Amis : Sometimes even the "funded by" part goes missing altogether and becomes outright money-laundering.

RossK : Tim Lambert is a god. I doubt many Canadians would even know that Canadian scientist Dan Johnson is being sued for "calling Tim Ball Tim Ball", as Eli Rabett so wittily puts it, if not for him.

Re youtr link : Lambert's work pointing out McKitrick's flawed methodology is from back in 2004. So why are we still listening to McK?

This is just like the friggin creationists - there's no purpose in pointing out their mistakes to them because they have no intention of changing their story to reflect those corrections.
They just move on to the next venue - wash, rinse, spin, repeat.

Btw, RossK, your comments are down. On purpose?

RossK said...

Why are we still (being forced to) listen(ing) to these people?

Because two-and-a-half years means nothing to these people.

After all, they spent four years trying to publish data based on calculations using degrees when they should have used radians which, as Mr. Lambert pointed out so pointedly, is no tiny 'mistake'.

And besides, demonstrable falsehoods mean nothing to the terminally lazy pack-media that the shills count on to shape public opinion for them.

_____

(thanks A. for pointing out comment problems - no intent, just a bit of sloppiness after the forced march to blogger2)

.

Blog Archive