Sections

Weather Forecast

Close

LETTER: Can any critic provide direct evidence?

To the editor:

The March 16, 2016 letter, “Future cost of climate change is $369 trillion” just begs for a Woodward-Bernstein-style investigation into the heart of the accusations made by letter writer Pete Kuntz.

First, however, allow me to thank you for permitting letters from both Kuntz and the target of his ire, prior letter writer, Tom Harris.

In full disclosure, I’m currently receiving a very modest strings-free grant from Heartland. But the earliest comments of mine I can find was the pair I placed here http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2009/08/22/psycho-analyses-of-a-cli... in 2009, years before I had any sort of association with Heartland. So, it can’t be said that my strings-free Heartland grants corrupt me.

Therein lies the investigative tip for you to pursue, in broader form: Does any degree of funding of skeptic climate scientists corrupt their viewpoints, as so many of their critics insinuate, or have such skeptics held those viewpoints the entire time? Can any critic literally provide you with direct evidence of a corrupt pay-for-performance arrangement between skeptic scientists and industry people?

Notice how Kuntz makes that kind of insinuation about “Peabody / ExxonMobil / Koch Brothers / fossil fuel mega-corporations funding.” The elemental question here is, where’s the physical proof backing it up?

At my GelbspanFiles.com blog, I show how this overall 20 year-plus accusation of corruption is nothing more than an unsupportable talking point devoid of any independent corroboration, stemming from a small clique of enviro-activists circa 1996-97. Not one person or entity who repeats the accusation, ranging from Al Gore to Desmogblog to Kuntz, has ever provided physical evidence proving skeptic scientists were paid and orchestrated to spread material they knew were lies.

Russell Cook

Phoenix, AZ

Advertisement
randomness