I finally found the link I was looking for that better explains my position by a public relations man who has come to the conclusion that the oil and energy corps have crossed the line from public relations into propaganda. He founded http://www.desmogblog.com in order to combat the misinformation being handed out by corporate interests. Below is the link to the purpose of his blog.

http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam
Slamming the Climate Skeptic Scam | DeSmogBlog

There is also a place where you can check out the credentials of 61 signatories who presented an anti-climate change petition to the Canadian prime minister. Interesting people.

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272
Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball) | DeSmogBlog

Hi LC–

And here is a blog link that often diputes GW and links to others disputing GW. The internet is crawling with both sides of the debate.

It looks to me as if you are not really searching for the truth, you are instead searching for all the information you can find to support your bias and trying to discredit anything you come across that undermines your bias.

I’m freely admitting that I don’t know.  I’m listening to both sides in the debate.  In my opinion the issue is far from settled.  And I always view anything with skepticism that tends to use the same argument for opposing facts, i.e., it’s a bad winter, therefore global warming is at fault; it’s a warmer than usual winter, therefore global warming is at fault.  As an old redneck friend of mine always said about such things, “It just don’t make no sense.”

Cheers–

MRE

When an academic like Lindzen comes before a Senate committee to testify, having been paid by a private interest to show up INSTEAD OF HIS OWN ACADEMIC INSTITUTION, I see a problem.

Big Oil, Big Food, Big Pharma,etc., have proven over the years that they DO NOT have my best interests at heart. Their bottom line has nothing to do with my welfare and beyond that, the political or financial welfare of the American population. Their lobbying actions, are overt–they don’t bother trying to hide what they’re doing to the public at all. We are the only industrialized country which has a governmental medical agency, Medicare, which CANNOT negotiate with drug companies for better prices. This is insane, and the Big Pharma lobbyists had that written into the Medicare bill.

Royal Dutch Shell, an international oil company, keeps very silent in THIS country regarding global warming, but in the Netherlands, its home territory, it’s very active in the global warming movement. The Netherlands will cease to exist if the oceans rise, and Shell knows this. You can bet they’re very proactive against gw right now, spending big money to put programs into place, yet they seem to think it’s okay to go along with the naysayer lobbyists here.

The corporate media in this country routinely ignores the low carb representatives like you, and only presents the low fat/high carb nonsense–thus making it seem more legitimate than it is–after all, if our trusty news anchors and daytime talk show hosts are alway touting low carb, it must be the correct way to eat, right? Likewise, corporate media has only been presenting the “contrarians” like Lindzen regarding global warming. You never see the other academics in the majority–the ones who have come to the conclusion that gw exists and something must be done. Thus, the idea that there is a big opposition movement is completely manufactured by the corporate interests that own our media. It’s always the same handful of scientists being brought out, and the 2500 plus scientists from all over the world who have written 9000 papers on global warming are rarely seen.

Hi LC–

You wrote:

The corporate media in this country routinely ignores the low carb representatives like you, and only presents the low fat/high carb nonsense–thus making it seem more legitimate than it is–after all, if our trusty news anchors and daytime talk show hosts are alway touting low carb, it must be the correct way to eat, right? Likewise, corporate media has only been presenting the “contrarians” like Lindzen regarding global warming. You never see the other academics in the majority–the ones who have come to the conclusion that gw exists and something must be done. Thus, the idea that there is a big opposition movement is completely manufactured by the corporate interests that own our media. It’s always the same handful of scientists being brought out, and the 2500 plus scientists from all over the world who have written 9000 papers on global warming are rarely seen.

You’re arguing circuitously in the above paragraph, but the last few sentences you use to bolster you argument in favor of GW could be applied to the low-carb movement.

For every paper written touting the existence of global warming, I could pull up three or four touting the benefits of statins.  The truth is the truth irrespective of how many people tout it or not.  Ten million people claiming a falsehood don’t make it right, so quit with the argument that since vast numbers of ‘scientists’ believe something it must be true.

Once again, I’m not saying global warming doesn’t exist; I’m saying that I’m not an expert in it, and since the real experts are in disagreement, I’m not convinced it’s real.

As to the Slow Foods and integrity statement you made…perhaps I didn’t use the best example.

MD and I stumbled into the low-carb diet ourselves, worked our way through all the complexities of it, used it and refined it on thousands of patients, then decided to write about our techniques in a book that ended up being called Protein Power.  The cattle ranchers and the beef industry liked what they read in our book and invited us to speak.  We have spoken at innumerable beef/cattle events and have been paid for each one.  It could be said that since we promote beef and have been paid by Big Beef that we are in the pocket of the beef industry.  But it isn’t true.  They simply hire us because they like what we have to say.  We came up with what we have to say on our own without any beef industry involvement.  It’s the same with many academics and authors.  Why would Exxon hire someone whose beliefs they disagreed with.  Exxon finds someone who publishes what Exxon likes to hear, then hires that person to speak or consult.  The person probably came up with his/her views independently.

Cheers–

MRE 

exxonsecrets is irrelevant. The man takes money from oil interests. That’s been documented–I just clicked on the closest one. Harper’s, a respected investigative magazine, ran this article in 1995, way before the current administration started its denial, way before it came onto the public’s attention. Go read the original article on cache:

http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
THE HEAT IS ON (Global Warming Disinformation)

Hi LC–

What’s irrelevant is your insistence that if someone in academia takes money from some entity then that person is automatically biased and his/her opinion doesn’t count. 

I know that I constantly point out that all the jerks who endorse statins get paid by the statin companies, but that’s different.  They are endorsing a product that their own research shows is worthless, so what other reason do they have for doing so other than money?

Global warming is a theory, not a proven fact.  The human brain seeks to find reasons for everything.  The human brain doesn’t like to believe that things happen randomly or are driven by larger, non-understandable (at least at this stage in our intellectual development) forces (and I’m not talking religion here, but physics, atmospheric science, etc.).  So, the weather is unpredictable.  We can’t count on a 5-day weather forecast by the same atmospheric scientists who are assuring us that global warming is taking place.  Think about it.  If the summer is too hot: it’s global warming.  If the winter is too cold: it’s global warming.  If the bees are vanishing: it’s global warming.  It’s great.  It works for everything.  It gives the human brain a cause to cling to to help understand non-understandable phenomena.

Now that I think of it, global warming is a statin-like phenomenon.  All the mainstream academics cling to the idea that statins are a cure-all for everything (I just read a paper purporting to show that statins may prevent lung cancer), and anyone who goes against them is considered a crackpot.  You write a paper glorifying statins, it gets published easily.  You write a paper taking statins to task, and you play hell getting it published.  Why?  Because the journals are peer-reviewed.  If you are a ‘peer’ on a journal review board and you’ve written 20 papers singing the praises of statins, are you going to approve one that basically demonstrates that all your own papers are worthless?  It’s highly doubtful.  But why are these people ‘peers’?  Because they are considered the ‘experts,’ and who better than the experts to evaluate a paper on statins?

It’s the same thing with global warming.  If you read a little about not just the theory, but the politics of global warming, you’ll find that it’s difficult to climb the academic ladder if one goes against global warming.  You’ll find that your papers don’t get published.  Just like has happened with the anti-statin people.  Then when one of them points out the worthlessness of statins in an interview, the question always follows: where are all the papers confirming what you say?

The statin situation is a financial one.  The global warming situation is a political one.  Most major universities are liberal.  The liberal branches of politics are firmly in the camp of the global-warming-is-real ideology.  Therefore, the major universities are in the same camp. Which is what makes the idea that a chaired professor at M.I.T, a major university by anyone’s estimation is anti-global warming.

I’m not saying that global warming isn’t real.  I don’t even know that much about it.  But I do know how academic politics works.  All I’m saying is that there is plenty of opposition to it and plenty of disagreement among the people who know much, much about these things than I to give me pause before buying into it whole hog.

I sense that you are so adamantly opposed to Big Oil (and probably Big Anything in the corporate world) that you are blinded from seeing anything from an opposing perspective.

I once gave a talk in Chicago for which I was paid (and all my travel and lodging expenses paid) by the Slow Foods movement, which is heavily pro-pasta, pro-bread, pro-starch, and anti-red meat (not entirely, but they recommend no more than a couple of servings per week as I recall).  I gave another talk once in Montreal paid for by the Wheat Board.  In both talks I presented the Protein Power diet and why I thought it a better nutritional regimen that the one the groups that paid me were proffering.

I suppose that sometime someone who it into conspiracy theories can dig into all this and warn low-carbers to ignore anything I have to say because Dr. Mike Eades has sold out to the grain industry.  Why?  Because he’s been paid by them to give talks or to consult.

If you want to continue to ignore or disbelieve anything anyone has to say because that person may have consulted with a corporation that you believe is evil, then have at it.  I just don’t believe that’s the optimal way to search for the truth.

Cheers–

MRE 

This applies equally well to science as to faith. An unexamined theory is not worth believing in. I happen to believe that some global warming is being caused by humans, but only because I have seen the data. Some is also caused by sun cycles. Some is caused by volcanoes. I think most of the political debate is caused by the ramifications of knowing we are causing global warming. The same could be said of low-carb vs. low-fat. An awful lot of our economy would tank if we all adopted a low-carb diet. Some parts would be way over-stressed. However, being an optimist and learning from history, I don’t think there is anything we can’t solve. Predictions of Malthusian doom weren’t any more correct in the 19th century than they are now.

You may read the rest at:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Richard Lindzen

When you have so many scientists from all around the globe coming to a similar conclusion, and then one or two go against the work of thirty years of said scientists, you gotta go looking for the money.

Hi LC–

Just the kind of political debate that I’m trying to avoid because neither you nor I are experts in global warming, but I’ve got to indulge in this instance.

As you wrote:

When you have so many scientists from all around the globe coming to a similar conclusion, and then one or two go against the work of thirty years of said scientists, you gotta go looking for the money.

This is precisely the opposite of what has happened with the low-carb movement. For years, thousands of academic physicians and scientists concluded that the low-fat diet was The Optimal Diet for all humans. They laughed at the few of us who stuck to our low-carb guns. By your analysis of the situation, that means that we tiny group of low-carbers must have been on the take because we were the “one or two” who went “against the work of thirty years” of the low-carb scientists.

As low-carb has proven, in many cases the masses are asses. Just because ‘everyone’ does it or says it is no reason to believe it. Nor is it a reason to assume that anyone with an opposing opinion is on the take.

And next time come up with something that supports your cause better than some publication with the obvious bias of Exxonsecrets.

Cheers–

MRE

All the so called experts against the idea of gw are paid by the corporations. Not one belongs to an academic institution without corporate ties.

Hmmm.  How about Dr. Richard Lindzen, a chaired professor of atmospheric science at M.I.T?  Or is M.I.T. an academic institution with corporate ties?

Cheers–

MRE 

Yeah, fix China first. Because we’ve had such great success in moving China on anything else that was important to the western world. Successes that come to mind: floating the currency, human rights, women’s rights, negotiating with north korea… We should definitely encourage China to use the best technology for coal burning that GE and Westinghouse can develop. As we all know, you have the model the change you want to see in others. So, if we’re gonna ask that of them, we need to do it here. We probably burn cleaner the China, but we’re not at the peak.

PS- China has emissions standards for autos that make ours look positively slack worthy.

Comment unnecessary.

here a collection of links to articles about skeptical viewpoints on different subjects of science and nutrition:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_sciencehealth.html
especially the subject of global warming is taken apart.

Hi David–

A valid complaint.  But the way I used the chart makes more sense when the “ignore contradicting evidence” is presented as it is.

Cheers–

MRE 

Sinc

Nope.  Take a look at the first comment on this post.  It’s the same paper.

Cheers–

MRE