We are the 99%

October 23, 2009

More On Mike Pintek and Climate Change: Milloy Edition

Short blog post today.

I caught a few minutes of Pintek on KDKA last night. The section I caught dealt with a new poll out by the Pew Research Center (read about it here) and as an "expert" the ever-ernest Pintek had on Steven Milloy, who runs a website called junkscience.com.

So who is this Steven Milloy when he's at home? (Subtle Beatles reference in that last sentence - don't worry about it if you don't get it.)

According to sourcewatch.org:
Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute.
I don't recall Pintek mentioning any of that, though I could be wrong. Pintek is nothing but fair and balanced when it comes to climate change (Subtle sarcasm in that last sentence - don't worry if you didn't hear it.)

Sourcewatch also says:
Milloy also runs the Advancement of Sound Science Center and the Free Enterprise Action Institute. Those two groups—apparently run out of Milloy’s home—received $90,000 from ExxonMobil.
Yea, Milloy's an objective expert on climate change. Of course.

7 comments:

Heir to the Throne said...

Yea, Milloy's an objective expert on climate change. Of course.
Oh please you link as objective sources scienceblogs.com and realclimate.org(defenders of the discredited "hockey stick".

EdHeath said...

HTTP, how is the hockey stick discredited? Specifically.

And who (what website) would you say is objective? Specifically.

Neither realclimate.org nor scienceblogs.com were mentioned in this post, so your referencing them is disingenuous (not that I am saying anything about their objectivity, in fact I know nothing about scienceblogs.com, so I couldn't evaluate it as a source at all).

I assume you would admit the possibility that someone with monetary ties to the oil industry might have a reason to express doubt about human caused global warming, particularly as it relates to automobile emissions.

Dave said...

HTTT:

Oh please you link as objective sources scienceblogs.com and realclimate.org(defenders of the discredited "hockey stick".

Yes how DARE they resort to a tactic as low as relying on actual science when global warming deniers have such "objective" sources energy industry funded "skeptics" Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick; the duo who supposedly "discredited" the "hockey stick" reconstruction in a paper that was--rather conveniently--not peer-reviewed and published in a non-scientific journal (Nature an actual science journal rejected a 2004 article by these two hacks).

Of course, the people who refuse to accept the reality of global warming in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence are the same sort of folks who believe Jesus rode a dinosaur

Heir to the Throne said...

sources energy industry funded "skeptics" Stephen McIntyre
Who found the Y2K bug in NASA Climate Data somehow missed by your peer-review.
or
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies—known as GISS—was forced to admit it committed an egregious error when it publicly claimed October 2008 was the warmest October in history.
...

And ED David quoted realclimate.org and scienceblogs.com in his last climate change post.

Conservative Mountaineer said...

I'm confused.

Several years ago, it was "Global Cooling". Then, earlier this year it was "Global Warming". Now, it's "climate change".

Seems as though the enviro-whackos can't really explain or comprehend the effects of El Nino, El Nina, or sunspots (or, silly, the fact that Greenland was GREEN a looong time before the combustion engine).

Let me give you my take..

**cough**bullshit**cough**

EdHeath said...

HTTT, if Dayvoe referenced Realclimate.org and scienceblogs.com in his previous post (which I couldn’t locate, but I will stipulate that Dayvoe must have referenced them at some point), then that previous post was the time to question their objectivity. Now it just seems like you are trying to distract from the fact that you can’t answer his post with an on-topic comment.

For that matter, you did not answer my other questions either. Apparently you know nothing about human caused climate change, you simply repeat conservative talking points (using the wrong talking points, by the way).

The Heartland Institute was widely criticized when it published a letter calling into question man made climate change, and attached a list of tens of thousands of supposed climate change experts. It turned out that some of those “experts” worked in the field of orthodontics, while others had not actually agreed to lend their name to this letter, indeed they had not even heard of the letter. It is likely that people will raise this point each time you link to an article from the Heartland Institute.

And CM, some few scientists worried about global cooling in the seventies, like some few scientists worried about over population. Rather more scientists are concerned about global warming this time. I, for one, appreciate your take on the issue. From which institution did you get your PhD?

Ol' Froth said...

I should like to add that "global cooling" hypothoses in the seventies were held by a rather small number of climatologists. It became huge in the popular conciousness thanks to articles in Time and Newsweek, which aren't peer reviewed science publications.