• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

This Speakout has not been edited

By John A. Spafford, Greenwood Village

Like many others, I am sure, I was disappointed to see not one but two op-ed pieces in Saturday’s edition which attempted to cast doubt on the recent publication of the report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which attributed the global warming phenomenon to primarily human activities. So in the interest of fair play, let me in turn cast doubt upon the credibility of those two op-ed pieces.

The first of these pieces ("Climate report too easily embraced by journalists") was written by Mr. Dave Kopel, a research director at the Independence Institute, a “free market think tank.” As we all know, “free market” means “pro-big-business,” and a very powerful segment of big business is constituted by the oil-producers who have a vested interest in preserving the fossil fuel-burning status quo. In his article, Mr. Kopel, who is a doubter of global warming, refers readers to a “new analysis” critical of the IPCC report promulgated by the Fraser Institute based in Canada, implying that this might be an unbiased read. However, readers should be aware that The Fraser Institute is probably not exactly an objective source for climate change analysis, as the institute has been the recipient of at least $120,000.00 in grants from ExxonMobil since 1998 — which brings me to the second Rocky op-ed piece, to wit: This second questionable piece was written by a Mr. Ross McKitrick, who is credited at the end of the article as being an associate professor of economics at the University of Guelph (Ontario, Canada). But perhaps Mr. McKitrick’s other credentials should have been listed as well. It seems Mr. McKitrick is also a Senior Fellow at the aforementioned Fraser Institute, recipient of ExxonMobil’s research grant largesse, and co-author of the document referred to by Dave Kopel in his op-ed piece. Hmmmnnn . . . In addition, Mr. McKitrick’s most prominent attempt at discrediting global warming was co-authored with a certain Steven McIntyre, former executive of a variety of Canadian mineral exploration companies and present-day anti-climate change blogster. Now, McIntyre & McKitrick’s paper was widely publicized and circulated in support of its anti-global warming position by none other than the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing “think tank” with close ties to the Bush administration and its now notorious policy of distorting and suppressing scientific research (see, for just one recent example, “U.S. climate scientists can’t speak freely, Congress told", RMN 01/31/07). Interestingly, something else the AEI shares with the Fraser Institute (aside from a veneration for Mr. McKitrick), is the receipt of large amounts of research grant money from ExxonMobil — although in the AEI’s case, the amount is closer to $2 million (see below). So both op-ed pieces rely on Mr. McKitrick’s dubious writings to support their minority position on global warming, and McKitrick works for or has written for the benefit of two entrenched anti-climate change think tanks highly funded by ExxonMobil. But what raises even more potential questions about the credibility of the sources and references for these op-ed pieces is the article published in the respected UK news publication The Guardian on February 2, 2007, which reported that the AEI has offered scientists and economists in the U.S., Great Britain, and elsewhere $10,000 each, plus travel expenses and other payments, as incentive to write articles that emphasize purported shortcomings of the IPCC report. The Guardian also notes, in addition to the fact that the AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil, that more than twenty of the AEI staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration, and that Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI’s board of trustees (read more at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0202-05.htm ).

Coincidences? Conspiracies? Phony science for pay? Perhaps, or perhaps not — I leave it to your readers to connect the dots on this one. However, one thing is certain: the resulting picture is not one of unquestioned objectivity, and in my opinion, the RMN and its readership would be better-served by presenting a more well-researched and “fair & balanced” approach in the selection of articles for its op-ed pages.

READER COMMENTS

Mr Spafford's op-ed piece uses the classic ad hominem argument.

Person A makes claim X.
There is something objectionable about person A.
Therefore claim X is false.

Claim X (global warming is caused by human activity) may be true or false, but Mr Spafford's letter does not actually do anything to clarify the falseness or truth of this.

I agree with you- "the RMN and its readership would be better-served by presenting a more well-researched and “fair & balanced” approach in the selection of articles for its op-ed pages. "
though not in the way you intended. The Global Warming myth has been propagated for too long. It is time to stop the madness. Follow the money trail and that is what GW is to the scientists.

Regardless of the reasons behind climate change we need to restrict the amount of pollutants that we spew into the atmosphere and water. We don't put garbage on our plates when we eat so why would we put garbage into our lungs? Let's get over the reasons that the climate appears to be warming and simply deal with the issue of poisoning ourselves.

The Guardian report on the AEI and your comments on Fraser Instittue conveniently forget to note that Exxon's funds were less than 5% of AEI's annual budget and less than 1% of Fraser's budget.

Now I know that Exxon has made donations to the Sierra Club in the past. Is the Sierra Club part of your "right wing conspiracy?"

Who do you work for Mr. Spafford? What investments do you have?

Full disclosure please.

POST A COMMENT

• Why so much turnover in mayor's office?
• Hearing on the Ruby Hill towers
• Let freedom ring
• Promoting socialized medicine
• Immigration Laws or Lack Thereof
• Atheist Diversionary Tactics
• The "Melting Pot" is unique to America
• Many mighty hearts covering the world