For your enjoyment, three global warming-related peoples and their celebrity doppelgangers.
1. Fred Seitz
Frederick Seitz had a stellar career as a scientist, working in solid state physics and becoming president of the United States National Academy of Sciences from 1962-1969, and the president of Rockefeller University from 1968 to 1978.
In 1979, Seitz went to work for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company as a paid permanent consultant. In the 1970’s and 80’s, Seitz helped the company disburse 45 million dollars to fund medical research, carefully avoiding spending any of it on research on the actual health effects of cigarette smoking. R.J Reynolds frequently ran ads touting their research investments as part of their commitment to science.
Later, Seitz went on to vocally dispute the science of global warming, and in 1998, began gathering signatures for a petition opposing the Kyoto Protocol. Most egregiously, ‘In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper from Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), and a letter from Seitz identifying himself as past president of the National Academy of Sciences.’
Now, if Seitz wasn’t the inspiration for Erhardt Von Grupten Mundt in the movie Thank You For Smoking, then I don’t know who was.
Meet ‘the man they rely on’:
…anyone else that says there is “no consensus” on global warming. Hint: there can still be a consensus, even if you, personally, disagree with it.
This is what consensus looks like:
The Science of Climate Change
A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Turkish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).
The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognize the IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus.
Given that ringing endorsement, does it really make much sense to give equal weight to viewpoints that dissent from mainstream scientific consensus?
Captain Rum would say yes. Here he is schooling Edmund Blackadder on the equal validity of all opinions:
3. Climate Audit’s climate ‘auditors’
One aspect of the CRU email thefts has been the insight into how climate scientists have had to deal with a barrage of Freedom of Information requests. What to make of them: were they an earnest request for information, or just plain vexatious behaviour?
When the requests look like the following, I’d go with the latter option:
I hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements)restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involing the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested1]
1. the date of any applicable confidentiality agreements;
2. the parties to such confidentiality agreement, including the full name of any organization;
3. a copy of the section of the confidentiality agreement that "prevents further transmission to non-academics".
4. a copy of the entire confidentiality agreement,
This pointlessly trolling climate scientists for data and information and doing sod all useful with it when they get it, and the constant, constant, whining for attention, totally reminds me of Stewie Griffin.
So take it away, Stewie.