Hi Lawrence
I completely agree. The report is still very interesting - if you've got some time give it a look, even if there might be questions about political ideology. The influence of oil companies is something that gets a mention in one of the emails (which, of course, are incomplete conversations and decontextualisd):
From: "Mick Kelly" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Shell
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +0100
Mike
Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
etc. By email? In person?
I hear that Shell's name came up at the TC meeting. I'm ccing this to Tim
who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to
make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!
I'm talking to Shell International's climate change team but this approach
will do equally for the new foundation as it's only one step or so off
Shell's equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and
what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the
new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it's
within the remit.
Regards
Mick
(http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0962818260.txt)
There are also allegations, and what appear to be confessions, about poor data management, withholding data for IPCC reviewers and even manipulation of data to fit the 'consensus'. In addition there are some worrying comments about trying to influence the peer review process and standing of particular journals.
If some of this is substantiated it could have serious ramifications for the Climate Change Debate (TM) and those involved.
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: A forum for critical and radical geographers on behalf of Lawrence Berg
Sent: Sat 1/23/2010 6:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: RGS-IBG second CFP: Science, politics and the nature of environmental debates
Jon,
It¹s useful to keep in mind the the Science and Public Policy Institute has
strong links to both Rightwing think tanks in the US and carbon-based energy
corporations like Exxon-Mobil. It is a well-known climate-change denial
organization. Here¹s part of the Wikipedia entry which presents some of
these links.
> The organization's Executive Director is Robert "Bob" Ferguson, who was listed
> as executive director of the Center for Science and Public Policy in the
> Frontiers of Freedom Foundation 2006 form 990[2]. He is also a former Chief of
> Staff to Republican Congressmen Jack Fields (1981-1997), John E. Peterson
> (1997-2002), and Rick Renzi (2002). The chief science adviser to the institute
> is Willie Soon, PhD an astrophysicist and geoscientist, a skeptic of man made
> global warming and proponent of the theory that climate change is caused by
> solar variation. The chief policy adviser is Christopher Monckton, a former
> special adviser to Margaret Thatcher. Further science advisers include William
> Kininmonth, Robert M. Carter, David Legates, Craig D. Idso, and James J.
> O'Brien. Joe D'Aleo is the institute's Meteorology Adviser.
Many of the people listed above are well-known climate-change deniers. It
might be both good science and good public policy to be skeptical about
publications from the SPPI.
Lawrence
On 10-01-23 5:38 AM, "Jon Swords" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Speaking of which, this is a fascinating analysis of the 'climategate' emails:
>
> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_an
> alysis.pdf
>
> Jon
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A forum for critical and radical geographers on behalf of Chiara Certomà
> Sent: Sat 1/23/2010 11:57 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RGS-IBG second CFP: Science, politics and the nature of
> environmental debates
>
>
> Second Call for Papers: RGS-IBG Annual International Conference,
> London, 1-3 September 2010.
> Science, politics and the nature of environmental debates
>
> The recent attention given to scientific discourses and practices in
> providing effective guidance to global environmental policies has
> shown that expert knowledge is not exempt of politics. On the
> contrary, scientific knowledge is the resulting product of continuous
> epistemological negotiations occurring amongst scientists as well as
> between scientists and non-scientists on what scientific data mean.
>
> The very recent controversy generated by the possible manipulation of
> climate data by several climate scientists a week before the
> Copenhagen summit can be seen as an explicit demonstration of how
> politics and science are intertwined and cannot be thought
> independently. Although this event raised the awareness of non-
> scientists about the uncertainties of climate sciences, how the
> interplay between politics and science occurs is still largely
> unquestioned and misunderstood. This miscomprehension has significant
> impacts on the formulation and application of environmental policies
> but also on how the non human world is imagined. For example, the
> epistemic realm through which scientific discourses and practices are
> produced and articulated makes it possible for scientists 'to provide
> a voice' (as a material semiotic approach suggests) to the biophysical
> environment that is generally considered as external to human
> societies and apolitical. In turn, the predominance of scientific
> discourses and practices in environmental NGOs and policy makers'
> circles when engaging with the non-human world makes it rather
> difficult to reorganise and challenge the power relationships
> constituting environmental sciences and politics.
>
> By not engaging with the politics at the centre of the production of
> knowledge as well as acknowledging its impact on the comprehension of
> the non-human world, environmental politics are building on shaky
> foundations that can result in important local and international
> policy failures, widely addressed by the post-environmentalist
> critiques.
>
> Thus, this session aims at bringing together contributions that are
> seeking to interrogate and re-conceptualise the relationships between
> politics, 'the political' and science in environmental governance.
> Topics may include, but are not limited to:
>
> · How non-scientific epistemologies can give voice to nonhumans
> and thus being part of a renewal of environmental politics, as a non-
> foundationalist and non-normative political view?
>
> · What are the different relationships occurring in the process
> of making scientific subjects political?
>
> · How scientific practices and discourses could inform us about
> the essence of the political?
>
> · How knowing about the politics of science would improve policy
> making and application?
>
>
> Abstracts (250 words max) should be submitted, by email, to session
> organisers Sébastien Nobert, King's College, London
> ([log in to unmask]
> ) and Chiara Certomà; Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa
> ([log in to unmask]
> ) by 1st of February at the latest.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lawrence D. Berg, D.Phil.
Co-Director, The Centre for Social, Spatial & Economic Justice
Graduate Coordinator, Human Geography
Community, Culture and Global Studies
University of British Columbia
3333 University Way
Kelowna, BC, Canada, V1V 1V7
Voice: +1 250.807.9392, Fax: +1 250.807.8001
Email: [log in to unmask]
WEB: http://web.ubc.ca/okanagan/ccgs/faculty/berg.html
Editor: ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies
http://www.acme-journal.org
Co-Leader: BC Disabilities Health Research Network
http://www.dhrn.ca