01/23/2017
Here is Nick Snow's letter that ran in the STAR on Jan 16th.
Excellent!!!
"FOLLOW THE MONEY"
NICK SNOW
Max Totten correctly writes that “ following the money” can separate “ fake news” from facts. Trust Max on this as he says he “ represented the chemical industry regarding hazardous materials” (Open Forum, March 9, 2013) for years.
Max correctly reports that in the 1960s the sugar industry paid three researchers thousands of dollars. Stanford scientist Stan Glantz concluded these payments were “ to derail the discussion about [the harmful effects of] sugar for decades.” Science understands transparency in research requires “ following the money.” Since the 1980s, most prestigious scientific and medical journals require funding source disclosure. Unfortunately, bloggers and “fake news” outlets do not.
Like the sugar industry in the ’ 60s, the to***co and fossil fuel industries have “ derailed the discussion.” Glantz has “followed the money” on these industries. Max’s scientist concluded that the to***co industry, “ engaged in antitrust activities, fraud, covering things up.”
By “ following the money,”Glantz concluded, “ the same people and companies that the to***co companies hired to create doubt and confusion about the dangers of smoking subsequently went to work for the petrochemical companies to do the same.”
Exxon was one of the leaders of published climate research in the 1970s. According to Scientific American, their then senior scientist, James Black, “warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees [C].”
A decade later, when Rex Tillerson became general manager of ExxonUSA, “ Exxon became a leader in campaigns of confusion ... question[ ing] the scientific basis for concern about climate change.”
Scientific American continued, “Since then, Exxon has spent more than $ 30 million on think tanks that promote climate denial.” By “ following the money,” Exxon, like the sugar and to***co industries, paid “ to derail discussion” of carbon pollution for decades.
Donald Trump has called climate change a hoax. Barbara Comstock’s House Science Committee recently tweeted a blog post claiming that climate change is not happening because some “ cherry- picked” regions of the earth’s surface were cooler in October than the previous month. This blog post neglected to say this “cherry-picked” region was, in fact, warmer in November. Facts matter.
Previous Republican presidential candidates campaigned accepting climate change. For example, George H. W. Bush, declared, “Those who think we’re powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect, are forgetting about the White House effect.” Since 1988, the then warmest year, the earth is more than a degree Fahrenheit hotter.
“ Following the money,” is it surprising that Trump and the Comstock House Science committee deny the scientific consensus on climate change? “Following the money,” is it surprising they would reject the Paris climate-change accord? “ Following the money,” is it surprising they would abolish the EPA? Will Max “ cherry- pick” Glantz’s sugar-industry paper, denying his other conclusions?
Nick Snow resides in Millwood.
