Your bigotry hurts me deeply. If you were my kid I would insist that you spend your time reading about science. Please leave journalism alone until you can learn to report the facts without inserting personal feelings.

Richard: I'm so glad you saw fit to note the Union of Concerned Scientists report, about how ExxonMobil has been passing out millions of dollars to conservative groups and think tanks, encouraging them to cast doubt on human-caused global warming and/or encourage delay in doing anything about the problem.

I'm afraid that Pete Geddes of the Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment (FREE) has been rather upset with me of late, for pointing out in New West blogs that Exxon is a long-time funder of FREE (as well as other companies and extreme rightwing foundations that have less than a stellar record regarding environmental regulation compliance).

My purpose (Pete says my obsession) in doing so is not to say that FREE doesn't voice interesting ideas and arguments about the issues of the day, but that readers should keep in mind who's paying for those ideas and arguments. Whether that is a good or bad thing is entirely up to the reader's individual judgement.

No Brodie:

My beef with you stems from your inability to do your job in a professional manner. For example, you continue to claim you are “exposing” FREE’s sources of funding when in fact they are posted (and annually updated) on our web site.

This funding argument is a red herring. As one simple example, Richard’s piece fails to ask who funds the UCS and what their motivations might be.

If we accept that the source of funding invariably affects – or taints – findings and opinions, then what should we make of the significantly greater amount of money spent by environmental advocacy groups that promote the notion of an impending climate catastrophe?

Governments, private foundations, and non-profit institutions worldwide spend orders of magnitude more to support a view of apocalyptic climate change if energy use is not significantly and immediately reduced, regardless of the consequences. (Private foundations alone spend $35-50 million each year on climate-related projects, which is substantially more than that allegedly spent on “skeptical” organizations.)

That they feel they have little to show for it suggests a much deeper (and more interesting story) exists. "Death of Environmentalism -- Life in a Post-Environmental World" by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus begins to probe this.

No, you’re simply flapping your gums as the interesting and important aspects of this issue move past. New West reader seeking to understand how a changing climate may adversely impact the social and ecological communities in the Rocky Mountain West deserve better.

I'm very pleased that FREE posts and updates funding information--many groups, to the left and right, do not do so with the high degree of transparency I would like to see. However, many people do not avail themselves of that information, even though it is right in front of them.

And you're right, UCS has funding sources itself, and the information is out there on the Internet (I seem to recall there's a conservative group specializes in tracking down and publicizing funding of enviro groups. You might be able to provide a link quicker than I.)

It would be interesting to compare and contrast the funding sources for left and right organizations (have New West readers seen anything like that?), but I seriously doubt if the leftie sources actually outspend the rightie sources, simply because the rightwing funding sources are so often rooted in hugely profitable corporations and the foundations set up by big business owners and/or managers. For every George Soros on the left, there's a Scaiffe, Coors, DeVore, Koch, Walton and Mars on the right.

Now if FREE's funding is a matter of public record and on your own Web site (again, applause is deserved), then it should be no big deal in drawing a bit more attention to it. The fact that it does seem to be a big deal (based on your reaction), simply draws more attention and helps readers ponder more deeply on what significance, if any, they should attach to FREE's funding sources, board of directors and your place in the vast, conservative network of think tanks and foundations that exist today. Readers are more than welcome to ponder funding for the left, and what that might mean. Certainly there's successful fund-raising to be considered, but that pales in comparison to the vast profits of the companies and financial interests that fund FREE and other conservative organizations.

Richard Martin's story about "Big Oil's disinformation campaign" makes it seem as if anybody who questions the source of global warming (as being from human causes) must be doing so disingenuously. And he (apparently) attacks FREE, as if they're some corporate lackey, when they are independant thinkers. It gets really tiresome hearing the kind of drone that Richard Martin is generating, and which appears constantly on New West. It's clear bias, not clear thinking, and not intellectually honest. It is by no means a fact that pollution is responsible for global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists has been a political advocacy group for decades. Their agenda is politically driven, not scientifically driven. That doesn't mean they are always wrong. But Martin shows his lack of credibility by harping on Exxon's bias and ignoring UCS's.
It's always a problem reading New West, because this kind of bias is prevalent. Who wants to waste their time getting "information" from writers whose minds are made up in advance. It affirms the impression that environmentalists are just a bunch of ranting kooks. Todd Wilkinson, for example, long ago in an editorial wrote that maybe we should not have a bad opionion about ranchers, because they preserve open land. He showed how removed enviros can be from the real world. His sentiment was conciliatory toward ranchers, as if they were doing something wrong. He revealed what Richard Martin reveals, biases that obscure rather that reveal what is, or may be, true. To those with other points of view, or to those who merely think beyond knee-jerk preconceptions, these pontificators come off as adolescent whiners.

John & Harry, on matters like this "bias" is almost always in the eye of the beholder. While a lot of what appears on New West relating to global warming reflects the view that it is indeed a big problem and is human-caused, that also happens to be the view of the vast majority of scientists. But we also publish stories that take a very different view, including regular pieces from Pete Geddes. The fact that you disagree with something doesn't mean that the writer is "biased," much less expressing "bigotry."

Brodie:

Your mendacity contiunes to impress me. You write: "...that pales in comparison to the vast profits of the companies and financial interests that fund FREE..." from our web site:

About 74 percent of FREE’s 2005 income came from private foundations, 20 percent from corporations, and the rest from individuals. FREE does not accept money from any government agency. Nor do we conduct contract research.

"Foundations that support progressive causes actually have lots of money, more than their conservative counterparts. The real problem -- and it finally needs to be aired publicly -- is that too much of this money is spent foolishly." Shuman, M. "Why Progressive Foundations Give Too Little to Too Many," The Nation (Jan. 12/19, 1998): 12.

It seems to me that "global warming" has become almost a religions with Al gore their diety. The Al Gore story on New west is a case in point. No real facts, jsut a lot of name calling and sneering. That does nothing to convince a tought old hen like me, I want black and white facts, not computer models. What goes in comes out.
Pete, I agree with you, I would really like to see a break down on who is funding what studies and how much total money is spent. I think environmentalism is the biggest business in the country and maybe the world today. They are hard to get a real handle on because of their tax free status. That is one of the reasons the IRS is having such a hard time getting to the bottom of the funny business at the Nature Conservancy, their books are very difficult to work thru.....even for experts like IRS.

And as to the canard Brodie repeats regarding conservative foundations having more resources than liberal ones, New West readers might want to check this out:

http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/war_of_ideas/

Thanks Pete! A footnote in the article you sent essentially proved my point:

11 More than $319.2 million was spent on think tanks of no identifiable ideology; only $47.8 million was spent on liberal think tanks. In 1996, roughly $156.4 million was spent on conservative think tanks. See Rich, Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise, p. 18-24.

Again, many thanks.

Brodie:

Please, this is embarrasing. From the report I cite:

The conservative foundations, which have been a focus in three reports since 1997 by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCPR), are often characterized as central to the conservative efforts in the war of ideas. These foundations are all significantly smaller than the 15 largest foundations in the United States. The largest one had 2002 assets totaling $580 million, compared with between $2.5 and $32 billion among the 15 largest foundations. The total amount these conservative foundations spent on public policy institutes was about $29.5 million -- less than one quarter of what the largest mainline foundations devoted to such work.

Any idea of a funding edge to the conservative foundations is further diminished after looking at 12 loosely comparable progressive foundations that are members of what's known as the "National Network of Grantmakers," a network of funders focused on supporting causes that promote social and economic justice.4These foundations spent $37 million in support of think tanks. Comparing the two sets of 12 foundations, the progressives spent $12 million more on public policy institutes in 2002.

Given these numbers, it's hard to attribute the conservatives' success in the war of ideas to their greater resources. The advantage lies in how the money is spent. Conservatives have found ways to package and market their ideas in more compelling ways, and their money is providing more bang for the buck.

The discussion on funding sources is interesting, important, and relevant. It should also include an examination of the motivations of the funders on all sides; this is where the rubber meets the road.

Specifically, because ExxonMobile's corporate charter establishes its goal as making profits and its profits depend on hydrocarbon production, they have a very real and tangible motivation to fund organizations that endorse or support policies that will help it produce and burn hydrocarbons. This certainly does not mean that everything FREE espouses is facially corrupt or suspect. But it is relevant.

Alternatively, do the funders of the UCS have a corporate charter mandating them to produce profits from curbing hydrocarbon production? Very doubtful because transitioning into a non-hydrocarbon energy world appears to create economic liabilities and hardhip, not profits.

The conflicts of interest are everywhere, but they are most obvious when ExxonMobile funds skeptics of global warming.

An excellent launch to a good discussion and debate, Richard.

Re. the funding sources and the thinktanks:
Are we now living in a post-information age? It seems to me that
the fantastic proliferation of information available to us all now has led not to a greater understanding of anything, but simply an opportunity for advocates of one ideology or another to flood the
arena with information, true or not, that they have chosen to support their position. We are living in a much wilder and more raucous information world than previous generations. I have a huge appetite for news, but even I am exhausted by the daily task of trying to figure out if I am reading agenda-driven information, or reading something written with the goal of rendering the truth as closely as it can be rendered. That is why it is crucial to know who is funding the people writing and publishing. We don't live in a perfect world of truth-seekers. Somehow, the "thinktanks" need to find a way to win back their legitimacy, because many of them do excellent work helping knowledge and policy to evolve. But if they are seen, as I see most of them now, as mouthpieces for the highest funding entity, then who needs anything they produce? And, in my opinion, the legitimacy of these outfits is very very low right now, as we have seen the fruits of their ideas put into action in our country over the past six years. For example, I just finished reading George Will's column today about how the minimum wage should be $0 per hour, and let the market decide. That is a fascinating idea that I can readily agree with, except that I have travelled around Latin America alot, and have seen plenty of places where there is no minimum wage, and the market declares that most of the people there live in abject poverty. It's a bit repulsive to see the photo of Will, in his impeccable suit and endless supply of wealth and self regard,, expounding this idea. These kinds of ideas are propagated by well-fed folks in these right wing thinktanks every day. “Drown the government in the bathtub” “Deregulate!” “No minimum wage!” etc etc. Find out who would most benefit from those “thoughts” and then look for their names on the list of funding entities. It might seem like a chicken or the egg question, but I suggest to you that it is not. I wish it was.

Re. the global warming debate. Must I be declared a despicable pessimist if I say that, no matter what the cause of the warming that every man woman and child of us can witness every day, nothing will be done about it? Human beings are incapable of acting together in such a way as to slow or stop such a process, whether it is caused by pollution or not. As Marion notes, global warming is a kind of religious notion, because who among us can look at the miles of gridlocked traffic, the belching coal fired power plants feeding the insatiable greed of all of us for power, for lights, airconditioning, computers, look at the rivers dammed and polluted, and not feel like we have sinned against the creator, whoever you deem that Creator to be, or if you are an atheist, that we have collectively been given the most wonderful gift in the universe and then despoiled it? Whether our actions are making it hotter and hotter every year, or whether it is just getting hotter, our actions are not so pretty are they? When enviros shout endlessly about global warming, predict a superheated apocalype, I have no doubt that they are sincere, but what they are preaching about goes deeper than just worrying about climate change. They want people as a whole to try and act BETTER. Try to burn less fossil fuels, try to live a bit less carelessly...if that "saves the planet" from global warming, so much the better, but at least we will have become just a bit les repulsive. In this way, the global warm debate reminds me of the "wolf debate." People who hate wolves have come up with every possible rationale for bashing the wolf re-intro. Instead, they should just say, "WE really really hate wolves, no concrete scientific reasons, we just HATE them." ." Enviros could say, “Man, we hate global warming, but that’s not the only reason to quit driving Humvees to work and building new coalfired power plants that spew out mercury and require huge strip pits! “Global warming” is just something we hope everybody will agree with us about, since it IS super hot outside, and we know that most people, unlike us, don’t really care if the mining industry blows up most of the northern Great Plains and the Black Mesa!”

In the end, in my opinion, the arrogance that human beings are exempt from natural processes will be challenged. If global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, and the human species is burning them, then it is a natural process. The results may not be pretty, but they will be natural, just as natural as if some individuals in the species decide to attack others with a nuclear device, and change the weather and the population demographics that way. Humanity is nature, it is red in tooth and claw, and as a group it is too shortsighted and chaotic to address a vast issue like global warming. I’d like to be proven wrong, but I would not want to bet on it.

That said, I believe in the power of individual action to change things for the better, above all. Because a battle is probably hopeless does not mean that fighting valiantly and well is not the only and best thing to do.

And I am super-sorry that this so dang long. Happy 2007, all.

Hal Herring

Hal, I don't think you can assign good motives to one side and bad motives to the other. Defining who is bad or good depends on who is looking at things. For instance is big oil funded studies bad because of who is doing it or good for the same reason? On the other hand are studies by scientists working for environmental groups good or bad. If one wants to dictate what other people do, then they are going to be in favor of a lot of environmentalist control, and think those studies are good. If one wants to control their own destiny and their own property, they are more likely to think good is the other way.
It seems like an awful lot of scientists work for environmental groups or organizations.
That is really apparent in the studies done on the Preble mouse. The scientist who works at the Univ of Colorado and was asked by the state of Wyoming to determine if the 1954 studies on seven skins were accurate in light of today's knowledge. He found the mouse was identical to other field mice and very similar to others. Scientists working for one of the envir groups of course found different and have attempted to destroy the man's career.
The value of the mouse against affordable wheat to feed humans?
As for the wolves, the big mistake was in not giving them to those who wanted them desperately instead of planting them on the edge of cattle and sheep ranches.
As for consuming causing global warming, it seems those with multiple homes, usually big homes in the most scenic places are the ones that want the ordinary guy to just stay home and not bother them. I have not seen a one of them turning those homes into multiple residences, not giving up a few of the extras. Mr. Gore hasn't, nor has he parked his plane. He seems to consume more than me and a dozen or more like me can possibly save, no matter how much we cut back.

All the arguments made about global warming are endlessly circular because there is no easy solution and possibly no solution at all. I assume this is the reason Hal Herring is a pessimist.
Every evening the weather forecaster on TV, radio, newspaper etc will give an average temperature (high and low) for the date. This data comes from the US Weather service. What most people don't know is that this is a rolling average of just the last 30 years even if they have more years from which to draw data. Go to weather stations that are not affected by "heat islands" in cities and plot the data ( some go back 150 years in the USA, and even longer in Europe) and now compare it to this rolling 30 year average and the differences will be obvious.

Marion,

Well said, as usual. I am skeptical of any information offered to me by those who have any motive at all. Big oil wants to keep on being big oil, and making the world's highest profits, so it has a very obvious reason for funding research that questions any negative effects that its product might have on the systems that sustain life on earth. Environmentalists, it could be argued, as you do well here, want to control what they perceive as the bad or careless behavior of others that negatively affects the systems that sustain life on earth-- oil wants endless profit, enviro wants control/power. But whereas the endless profits of the oil companies are not necessarily something that every inhabitant of the planet has an interest in, clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, the role of forests in flood control, etc, certainly is. That's why my skepticism lever is turned back a little bit when reading a story about water pollution, for example, and turned up when I read a "study" that is funded by an oil company. But the lever is still in use, I assure you.
As a writer, I try really really hard to do this-- I imagine a pile of rocks in the yard. Now those rocks are just rocks. That is reality. Some people might tell me that the rocks are gold. Others tell me that they are horse manure. Someone who wants me to move the rocks will tell me that there is $100 hidden underneath them. But the rocks are just rocks. As the saying goes, "how many legs does a horse have if we call his tail a leg?" "Five?" "No, four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg." Reality is not dependent on how it is perceived. That's a mouthfull, but I believe it.

I agree with you that the Preble's jumping mouse issue has been used in service of an agenda that has little to do with the mouse. People don't want to see all that land go into houses and sprawl, so they seized on the ESA to try and do something that could not be done otherwise, ie. slowing down the conversion of land to subdivisions. For people like me, who are proud of the way the US has prioritized saving biodiversity, the use of the ESA in that way is bad news. That said, I don't believe that human beings have any intrinsic right to destroy any of the species that live on the planet with them. That's a big issue, but very fundamental, because the US was one of the first nations on earth to say that in law, and I really believe that says something wonderful about our country. Don't you? Or do you think that we should just be able to kill off whatever we want, if its on our own property? It's an interesting question isn't it? Esp. for me, because I am a property rights person...was raised with that.

Growing wheat versus the survival of the mouse is not the example I'd use, because wheat is a heavily susbsidized crop, and if it came down to wheat production versus the survival of any species, logic would say scale back the wheat production to market-sustainable levels. As I understand it, it's more like housing versus the mouse, and housing development is extremely profitable, so there's reason for fighting over it.

I agree with you that the wealthy consume a disproportionate amount of everything, and give off alot more greenhouse gases than us poor folks...sometimes I'd really like to join them in that, but that's not likely to happen. But sometimes the wealthy people do good things that we cannot afford to do, like flying around trying to make things better.

Hal

Hal, the problem is that neither side wants to deal with pure unadulterated facts, and it is impossible for ordinary folks to really sift thru and determine what is the truth. It is hard for me to accept that lying about the mouse to prevent wheat farmer from growing wheat is ok, as long as there are hungry people in the world there is not too much wheat. as long as there are homeless families, there are not too many houses. On top of that restricting the building of homes keeps the price high for those who already have theirs because of supply and demand.
Who's greedy, the man wanting to grow wheat on his land or the developer who wants to build houses on his, or the environmentalist with nothing invested who wants his home in the same area to be worth more?
Even if corporations stretch the truth, they are under so many restrictions that they are still under control. On the other hand if we have a non existent wood pecker, the taxpayer gets the bird, when millions of taxpayer dollars go to protect it's "habitat".
The ESA has to be one of the worst outcomes for what was a very good idea. One big problem is the single species focus, nothing else that is affected by that species is given more than cursory attention or consideration. The wolf is a prime example of that. Yellowstone is on the brink of a wildlife disaster, and nobody wants to look at the facts. Right now the elk herds are dramatically diminished, and Dr. Mech states in his latest evaluation that unless the calf recruitment improves and the cow numbers increase the elk herds will "continue to dwindle." Instead fo trying to think of a way out, the hole is getting dug deeper as Smith studies to see why the weather is making the wolves kill more bull elk.
Predators got the swans last winter, something else that was not considered.
Right now I'd say that the ordinary person is caught between bug business and big environmentalist groups, and believe me they too are big business, they just do not have the oversight.

Below is a link to an article of what Exxonmobil says today about climate change. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16475341/site/newsweek/

Marion, you live in Wyoming and have an incomplete perspective on the world. If you travel back East, as I recently did for the holiday, pollution and development is horrific. If you travel to China, your eye’s might pop out of your head. As a person who claims to understand and appreciate the natural world around you, I would hope that you agree with Hal’s argument that even if global warming is not the real problem that the scientific community agrees it to be, so what. The outcome of a collective effort to combat the issue will be good for both the planet and the human race. Not only will carbon reductions help to maintain the integrity of our biotic communities, human health will be improved and economic opportunities will be plentiful. Though your contention related to wolves and elk disposes of the notion that you understand ecology, you must recognize that humans have wrecked many ills on the environment that must be remediated in order for an increasing global population to sustain itself peacefully.
So a monster has now been created because the scientist’ message about human-induced climate change, argued for years, is finally accepted by the public conscience. Perhaps some of the skeptics opinions have been swept aside in the publication of this theory. Perhaps the dilemma is more dire than anyone realizes. The fact is we don’t know. However, it is important to listen to the scientist that understand, and therefore appreciate, how the natural world operates.
Get on board marion and other skeptics. I know you believe that “enviros” are out to steal your livelihood and kill your cows. You are entitled to that naïve opinion. However, from a global perspecitive, you must loose the short-sighted, local-minded attitude. Consumptive pressure driven by the innate human self-satifaction and greed is destroying much of what makes life on Earth fascinating. If these minds latch onto global warming as a surrogate call for conservation and sustainability, big deal. Society will certainly be better for addressing it.

In other words we need to let you and others who think like you decide our lives?
Do you feel that your consumption must be curbed by force too? Do you want someone to take away your vehicle, your house, your heat, your power, your computer, or just the other guys? While some things might be good if we take away manufacturing, and all of the things that go along with it, it would be a terrible thing to do to the world. I suspect the intention is only to slow down the Americans, and prevent our commerce, but it woudl ripple across the whole world. What good is making our oil supplies last longer, if folks can no longer use it, or even get to it?
Water shortage is looming as a bigger problem than global warming, and millions of gallons could be saved by eliminating indoor plumbing. Resulting contaminations and health issues would far outweigh the potential benefits. The same is true of shutting down manufacturing and commerce, the effects of all of that would more than offset any potential benefit.

Marion,
get real. Nobody is going to steal your home, kill your cows, and make you live in a cave. Don't be so ignorant and have some concern. The issue is raising public awareness and creating a society where environmental costs are not externalized.

You also raise a critical issue and are correct that the fresh water supply is perhaps the greatest concern facing humanity. Global warming will lead to water shortage problems over much of the industrialized world. We already see all of the symptoms with glaciers receding and snow melt occurring earlier. Even if CO2 emissions are to stabilize today, the climate change acceleration that is currently in the pipeline is irreversible.

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=703

Phil, do you see anyone including "believers" actually doing much of anything? Flying around and around and from this home to another home is not actually accomplishing anything except increasing the amount of hot air out there.
I am not worried about anyone stealing anything from me, I am concerned that fuel can become so expensive that ordinary people cannot afford it. I do not want us signing any international agreements, in the first place historically America is about the only one who actual does what they say they will.
Why do environmental groups not fund any research on alternative fuels, if they truly believe that this is real? I don't think that they do, that is why they use their money to fund lawsuits instead.
The fact is we need more homes and more fuel and more food for more people everyday. Greens tend to ignore these need in favor of what they consider Paradise.

Perhaps this can help put things in context:

Why the green lobby must be treated as a religion
By John Kay

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/03e6dbf4-9f87-11db-9e2e-0000779e2340.html

I have long maintained that environmentalism is a religion and as such should not be taught in our schools with the fervor it is. Government definately should not be involved.

Exxon is "distancing" itself from climate change skeptics.

That's the news today at MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606) which reports that Exxon won't be funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute this year, as well as "five or six" similar groups.

We'll have to wait until spring for Exxon's report about which non-profits it is funding, but what does this bode for deregulatory, pro-privatization think tankers?