Eclipsed from the headlines by the ongoing carnage, there is an active
civil resistance in Iraq that opposes the occupation, the torture regime
it protects, and the jihadi and Ba'athist 'resistance' alike.
Submitted by David Ridenour (not verified) on Thu, 07/05/2007 - 18:34.
Michael Nimon apparently can’t admit to his mistakes. He responds to my criticisms by setting up straw men, countering assertions I never made.
For example, to counter my claim that we have not received any money to work on CAFE standards, he cites Source Watch noting that we’ve received funding from the Exxon Mobil Corporation and a number of foundations that he claims are closely connected to the oil industry.
Two of the foundations he cites, the Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations, were established by the banking branch of the Mellon family and today these foundations don’t even have a direct connection to the banking business, much less the oil business. All the foundations cited have tangential connections to the oil industry at best and certainly less direct associations than the Pew Charitable Trusts, which was established with Sun Oil Company profits, and is today one of the largest supporters of global warming alarmists.
And now my favorite part: Nimon states as a fact that my organization received a “bundle more from various auto and oil industry execs.” In his response to my critique, however, Nimon confesses: “Most of NCPPR’s funding, however, comes from thousands of individuals who support their work, but whose names NCPPR doesn’t release – hence it is difficult to name the specific industry officials who finance NCPPR’s activities.”
In other words, the “auto and oil industry execs” charge was a complete fabrication.
We do, in fact, receive most of our money from thousands (as many as 80,000) of individuals. We do not disclose the names of these individuals as donor lists are valuable assets that can be diminished if exploited by unscrupulous marketers.
We have, however, offered to disclose the names of all of our largest donors – those over $50,000 – if Greenpeace will do the same. Greenpeace has, so far, rebuffed this standard of transparency.
All this is beside the point as I never suggested that we receive no funding from Exxon Mobil (it is small – less that 1% of our revenue). I did say we’ve never received funding from the corporation to work on fuel economy standards. Not even Source Watch makes this claim.
Just to recap here: Dr. Nimon has said both that we receive money from auto and oil industry executives and that he has no way of knowing whether this is the case; he dismisses information from the only organization with access to detailed information about our sources of funding; and he misrepresents the meaning of information about our funding obtained from another source.
One hopes these aren't techniques he teaches his students.
To divert attention from his error with regard to who leads our organization, he asserts that the former lobbyist he claimed led our organization served on our board of directors. Serving as one member of a board does not mean one leads a group. Words have meaning -- even in journalism.
The issue is also completely irrelevant to our work on CAFE standards.
But an honest debate of the issues was not what Dr. Nimon intended. He intended to impugn our reputation through yellow journalism.
Finally, Dr. Nimon asserts that when he spoke of the Jetta TDI, he was speaking of the 2008 version of the vehicle, which he claims the auto industry press asserts will get around 60 mpg (Edmunds estimates that the 2008 will get 45 mpg).
Two problems with this: First, he completely ducks the issue that the CAFE standards in question would be an average for cars and light trucks. Getting to an average standard of 52 mpg simply wouldn’t be possible unless either everyone is driving cars getting close to 52 fuel economy or there are a sufficient number of people driving super-efficient vehicles (perhaps 75 mpg or better) to make up for the people who must drive less fuel efficient vehicles.
Second, he seems content to treat the auto industry press as Gospel.
I think Nimon is a bit confused as to who is actually in the hip pocket of industry.
As for me, I’ll believe the 55 mpg figure when I see it.
The inconvenient facts and unanswered questions surrounding the attacks are legion, but the endemic sloppiness of the self-styled "researchers" is delegitimizing the entire project of critiquing the "official version." The ostentatiously named "Truth movement" is not clearing the air, but muddying the water.
WW4 Report pamphlets
WAR AT THE CROSSROADS
An Historical Guide Through the Balkan Labyrinth
The Balkan region is intensely multicultural - a point of crossroads and clash for some of the world's major religions, cultural spheres, and economic systems. While there have been vicious wars in Balkan history, these have taken place in the context of manipulation by imperial powers and the self-serving local leaders who cater to them.
opensource technology and the people of Sundays Energy
Gaz Guzzler Lobby Strikes Back?
Michael Nimon apparently can’t admit to his mistakes. He responds to my criticisms by setting up straw men, countering assertions I never made.
For example, to counter my claim that we have not received any money to work on CAFE standards, he cites Source Watch noting that we’ve received funding from the Exxon Mobil Corporation and a number of foundations that he claims are closely connected to the oil industry.
Two of the foundations he cites, the Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations, were established by the banking branch of the Mellon family and today these foundations don’t even have a direct connection to the banking business, much less the oil business. All the foundations cited have tangential connections to the oil industry at best and certainly less direct associations than the Pew Charitable Trusts, which was established with Sun Oil Company profits, and is today one of the largest supporters of global warming alarmists.
And now my favorite part: Nimon states as a fact that my organization received a “bundle more from various auto and oil industry execs.” In his response to my critique, however, Nimon confesses: “Most of NCPPR’s funding, however, comes from thousands of individuals who support their work, but whose names NCPPR doesn’t release – hence it is difficult to name the specific industry officials who finance NCPPR’s activities.”
In other words, the “auto and oil industry execs” charge was a complete fabrication.
We do, in fact, receive most of our money from thousands (as many as 80,000) of individuals. We do not disclose the names of these individuals as donor lists are valuable assets that can be diminished if exploited by unscrupulous marketers.
We have, however, offered to disclose the names of all of our largest donors – those over $50,000 – if Greenpeace will do the same. Greenpeace has, so far, rebuffed this standard of transparency.
All this is beside the point as I never suggested that we receive no funding from Exxon Mobil (it is small – less that 1% of our revenue). I did say we’ve never received funding from the corporation to work on fuel economy standards. Not even Source Watch makes this claim.
Just to recap here: Dr. Nimon has said both that we receive money from auto and oil industry executives and that he has no way of knowing whether this is the case; he dismisses information from the only organization with access to detailed information about our sources of funding; and he misrepresents the meaning of information about our funding obtained from another source.
One hopes these aren't techniques he teaches his students.
To divert attention from his error with regard to who leads our organization, he asserts that the former lobbyist he claimed led our organization served on our board of directors. Serving as one member of a board does not mean one leads a group. Words have meaning -- even in journalism.
The issue is also completely irrelevant to our work on CAFE standards.
But an honest debate of the issues was not what Dr. Nimon intended. He intended to impugn our reputation through yellow journalism.
Finally, Dr. Nimon asserts that when he spoke of the Jetta TDI, he was speaking of the 2008 version of the vehicle, which he claims the auto industry press asserts will get around 60 mpg (Edmunds estimates that the 2008 will get 45 mpg).
Two problems with this: First, he completely ducks the issue that the CAFE standards in question would be an average for cars and light trucks. Getting to an average standard of 52 mpg simply wouldn’t be possible unless either everyone is driving cars getting close to 52 fuel economy or there are a sufficient number of people driving super-efficient vehicles (perhaps 75 mpg or better) to make up for the people who must drive less fuel efficient vehicles.
Second, he seems content to treat the auto industry press as Gospel.
I think Nimon is a bit confused as to who is actually in the hip pocket of industry.
As for me, I’ll believe the 55 mpg figure when I see it.