Author of new climate sceptic report was set to receive $1000 a month from oil lobby group

Joss Garman reports on climate sceptic report author Indur Goklany, who is linked to a number of oil industry funded US lobby groups.

E-mail-sign-up Donate

 

.

With rising concern from the scientific community about the impacts of climate change on public health, perhaps it isn’t surprising Lord Lawson’s fossil fuel lobby group, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, have now decided to argue it is policies that combat climate change that “might be bad for your health” and “global warming does not currently rank among the top public health threats”.

World-drowning-in-oilTheir new report out today is authored by Indur Goklany, who previously worked for the Bush administration and who is linked to a number of oil industry funded US lobby groups.

It emerged earlier this year that he was supposed to receive a payment of $1,000 per month from the Heartland Institute, which in turn received millions of dollars to promote climate change denial from some of the most polluting companies in the world.

Goklany has previously been caught peddling misinformation about malaria.

Last year the World Health Organisation argued:

“Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through better transport, food and energy-use choices can result in improved health.”

And warned:

“The overall health effects of a changing climate are likely to be overwhelmingly negative.”

 


See also:

Lord Lawson cherry picks data to spread climate change denial 8 Nov 2010

Lawson to councils: Do “absolutely nothing” to cut your carbon 5 Aug 2010

More evasiveness and secrecy over climate foundation’s funding 23 Jun 2010

Lawson still won’t come clean about sceptic foundation’s funding 10 Jun 2010

Lawson remains silent on funding as committee debates “climategate” 2 Mar 2010

Five questions for Lord Lawson and Benny Peiser 1 Mar 2010

Oil links of Tory climate denial grandees 25 Nov 2009


 

Three years ago the prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, and the UCL Global Health Institute ran a year-long commission looking at the impacts of climate change on health.

They concluded:

“Climate change is the biggest global-health threat of the 21st century.”

Similarly, the British Medical Association says:

“Climate change is a major threat to public health.”

An editorial in the Lancet at the time they launched their commission warned:

“Too many doctors have been silent for too long about the importance of climate change to the future of health and health services.”

While Professor Costello, the commission leader, told The Times (£):

“The big message of this report is that climate change is a health issue affecting billions of people, not just an environmental issue about polar bears and deforestation.”

The UCL/Lancet Commission found:

• Malaria, tick-borne encephalitis, and dengue fever will become increasingly widespread.

• Small increases in the risk for climate-sensitive conditions, such as diarrhea and malnutrition, could result in very large increases in the total disease burden.

• “Heat – the ‘silent’ killer – has a major effect on mortality, with the 2003 heat wave causing up to 70,000 excess deaths in Europe.

“While some people believe populations in India and Africa may be more resistant to heatwaves, there is little evidence of this and major heatwaves could increase death rates in these populations more than in high-income countries.”

• “Up to 250 million people in Africa will face water shortages by 2020 if no action is taken on adaptation. Water and sanitation are crucial to prevent gastroenteritis and malnutrition.”

This followed a 2008 report from the UK’s Department of Health that looked at the impacts of climate change on health in Britain, and highlighted numerous threats.

It found:

“The most important impact is likely to be an increase in skin cancers.”

And:

“Higher temperatures as a result of climate change might exacerbate the food poisoning problem which is already a significant threat to public health.”

 


Sign-up to our weekly email • Donate to Left Foot Forward

35 Responses to “Author of new climate sceptic report was set to receive $1000 a month from oil lobby group”

  1. Anonymous

    So if its a willy waving competition, look at the scale of money on the other side. Hansen for example. Millions not peanuts. Bias? Yep, Ignoring Evidence? Yes. Hockey stick? Bogus.

    End result, look at Germany. 15% of the population can’t afford electricity.

  2. milo9

    Frm earlier: Author of new climate sceptic report was set to receive $1000 a month from oil lobby group: //t.co/Xe1q619j

  3. Jinan Harb

    Lord Lawson's GWPF looks ever more like an #astroturf outfit. @jossgarman on his latest folly: //t.co/dVR7vJsn

  4. Anonymous

    fear mongering the CO2 exaggeration will leave neocons in power forever

  5. Windy

    Al Gore gets $150,000.00 + expenses by lefty groups to frighten people with no science background and children. If Goklany was in it for the gold he chose the wrong team.

  6. Nick H.

    From earlier: Author of new climate sceptic report was set to receive $1000 a month from oil lobby group: //t.co/Xe1q619j

  7. Anonymous

    The hockey stick is only bogus if you’re willing to shut your eyes. Also, thanks for trumpeting your credentials as a creationist, after all, evolution has less support among biologists than AGCC among climate scientists.

    And your “solution” of pushing up the bills to sustain energy company profits isn’t working either. Nuclear power is the answer.

  8. Anonymous

    Yes, because sensible and mature adults can understand the word “consensus” without needing to watch the film, yes, and that frauds and their anti-science backers like you who are directly involved in perverting science to their ideological aims…

    As opposed to a film explaining the science, not creating new “science” out of whole cloth to support fictions and confabulations, as you are championing. Why, beating people can be proven beneficial to them via your method…I await your 1%’s pushing on THAT.

  9. KMJ

    From earlier: Author of new climate sceptic report was set to receive $1000 a month from oil lobby group: //t.co/Xe1q619j

  10. Old Alchemist

    RT @leftfootfwd: Author of new #climate #sceptic report was set to receive $1000/mo from #oil lobby group: //t.co/85AYC0Ph

  11. Barry Johnston

    From earlier: Author of new climate sceptic report was set to receive $1000 a month from oil lobby group: //t.co/Xe1q619j

  12. Anonymous

    I tend to agree on nuclear power.

    1. Make sure they are all clones. None of the mad uk track record of trying to build a new prototype each time.

    2. What’s also clear, is that windmillery isn’t the solution. That’s the real cause of bumping up the cost, driving the poor into poverty.

    3. Same for photovoltaics. The rich greens getting the poor to hand over lots of cash to them. Robin Hood in reverse.

    Hockey stick is still bogus.

    15 year trend has gone negative.

  13. Tristram Wyatt

    From earlier: Author of new climate sceptic report was set to receive $1000 a month from oil lobby group: //t.co/Xe1q619j

  14. Anonymous

    Then you’re not agreeing with me, you’re shamming to look reasonable. The current trends are well-explained in actual science.

  15. Daniel Christino

    Author of new climate sceptic report was set to receive $1000 a month from oil lobby group //t.co/deH5RbrP via @prismatic

  16. Tom Usher

    From earlier: Author of new climate sceptic report was set to receive $1000 a month from oil lobby group: //t.co/Xe1q619j

  17. Windy

    While sensible and mature adults can understand the word “consensus”, who cares? Certainly none of the climate scientists I communicate with, including family members, has ever suggested that consensus is meaningful to their scientifc pursuits. My success and riches in life came from bucking consensus thought. A mind that has been freed understands that consensus is an obstacle to science, discovery and invention. I did not study under Feynman but his quote, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” sums up my experience and perspective.

    You actually made me lol with your hyper-emotional imagination. I think you must be a heck of a mind reader as there certainly was not enough information in my very short post for you to have gleaned all that information about me. Were you projecting?

    As for Gore’s film, besides being a cure for insomnia, what do find appealing about it?The UK courts required a caveat to be read to school children before viewing AIT in any school in the UK. I found it to be sophmorish and poorly researched but if you would like to defend it, have at it. I am ready to discuss any aspect of climate science if you so wish to do so. If you do, might I suggest we start with the problem of missing ocean heat that Gore was unaware of as well as the climate model divergence? I can’t wait to bring out the Newsweek article that talks about how Gore had to change his slides when climate scientists informed him that man made CO2 was less of a forcing for temperature than they first thought. I love talking about climate science. 🙂

  18. Nafeez Ahmed

    Author of new #climate sceptic report was to get £1,000 from oil lobby //t.co/x9JjULMV wow that's like such a surprise

  19. Sydney Netter

    Lord Lawson's GWPF looks ever more like an #astroturf outfit. @jossgarman on his latest folly: //t.co/dVR7vJsn

  20. Anonymous

    “who cares?”

    People interested in fixing problems, rather than creating them. I’m not interested in your assault on science itself, either.

  21. Anonymous

    Current trend – 15 year – is negative. What’s the actual science that says the long term trend is negative, when CO2 is up?

  22. Anonymous

    Since when was ‘science’ consensus?

    Who defines ‘consensus’?

    Who gets to decide who is in the cabal?

    Meanwhile, leccy prices are escalating to pay for the windmillery.

  23. Anonymous

    If you’re participating in the discussion without knowing that…

  24. Anonymous

    Cabal, I see. Like the evolution cabal.

    You know nothing of science, and it shows. And yes, your government is doing that.

  25. Maybe

    #Astroturfing MT @leftfootfwd: Author of climate sceptic report was set to receive $1000 a month from oil lobby group: //t.co/fP0FTuHp

  26. virgo268

    #Astroturfing MT @leftfootfwd: Author of climate sceptic report was set to receive $1000 a month from oil lobby group: //t.co/fP0FTuHp

  27. Marian Rumens

    #Astroturfing MT @leftfootfwd: Author of climate sceptic report was set to receive $1000 a month from oil lobby group: //t.co/fP0FTuHp

  28. Irate Citizen

    #Astroturfing MT @leftfootfwd: Author of climate sceptic report was set to receive $1000 a month from oil lobby group: //t.co/fP0FTuHp

  29. Jbowers

    SPPI’s Robert Ferguson: up to $300,000 salary for a standard working week. Why the info’s in Craig Idso’s Center for the Study of Climate and Global Change’s IRS form 990 is a bit puzzling. Doesn’t Ferguson have a proper think tank? Oh, SPPI’s mailing address is a PO Box in VA.

  30. Anonymous

    Of to Germany, to avoid paying your debts. Tut tut.

  31. Anonymous

    Ohnoes, it’s SO terrible I want a job.
    Can’t be having that now.

    So terrible your buddies in government made it a priority to cancel the ~30 million a year tax break to keep my industry competitive, costing the UK 4.5 billion in investment and counting.

    Pay your share, Feral 1%er.

  32. 25th Century Girl

    RT @leftfootfwd: Author of new climate sceptic report was set to receive $1000 a month from oil lobby group //t.co/rblCvAEm

  33. Asia Brown

    RT @leftfootfwd: Author of new climate sceptic report was set to receive $1000 a month from oil lobby group //t.co/rblCvAEm

  34. DkChoco

    RT @leftfootfwd: Author of new climate sceptic report was set to receive $1000 a month from oil lobby group //t.co/rblCvAEm

  35. Lyn Peterson

    RT @leftfootfwd: Author of new climate sceptic report was set to receive $1000 a month from oil lobby group //t.co/rblCvAEm

Leave a Reply