Seitz signs on:

May 1979 http://tinyurl.com/fsv6g
Pg 1
There are abundant reasons for R-J-R to place a priority on research, particularly on smoking and health research. One is that our sense of integrity dictates that we respond directly to a fundamental attack on our business. Another is that if we can refute the criticisms against cigarettes, we may remove government’s excuse for imposing heavy taxes on the product. …… A third reason is that there are a large number of crucial questions that need scientific answers in the area of smoking and health.

Pg 7
In evaluating and monitoring the special projects that we fund — particularly the sole-sponsorship programs — R.J. Reynolds Industries has secured the services of a permanent consultant — Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of Rockefeller

Seitz’ role
June 1980 http://tinyurl.com/zmrk9
Procedures for Managing and Progress Monitoring of R.J. Reynolds .Industries Support of Biomedical Research .Management -
The following procedures govern the commitment of funds to biomedical research and the role of various individuals and authorities in considering requests and granting approvals:

Requests for funding support will be referred to Dr. Frederick Seitz

Dr. Seitz and other members of his advisory panel will review fund requests.and prepare recommendations based on these criteria: Project viability, Researcher’ s qualifications,

Adequacy of facilities, Consistency with overall program objective

Prior to presentation to the Contributions Committee-for disposition, Dr. Seitz will informally discuss recommendations with Mr. H.C. Romer, general counsel. His comments will be appended to the written evaluations and recommendations presented to the Contributions Committee

How much did Seitz get:
July 1986 http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/508263286-3286.html

Dear Dr. Seitz: We should like to renew the letter agreement dated July 12, 1978 between you and RJR Nabisco, Inc. (formerly R.J. Reynolds Industries, Inc.) for six months commencing July I, 1986 at an annual fee of $65,000 which shall be paid in equal monthly installments on the last day of each month. In all other respects the agreement will remain in full force and effect.

The best one yet: http://tinyurl.com/jyt4b

First, Lindzen is listed nowhere in any of those documents. Are you sure you’re not on a witchhunt?

Second, Seitz is listed as an outside advisor to where research money is to be spent, that’s all. He may not have even had any input to the final report (sounds like the IPCC, which ignored the input on uncertainty of most of it’s scientists. One would think the majority would object and want AR4 to be more representative of the science, rather than be used the way they were in the past).

Third, Singer is listed only in the third, saying the science behind the EPA’s position on second hand smoke and other subjects is flawed. Simplifying that statement, it does not say second hand smoke is not bad – in fact denies saying that that several times. It merely says the EPA’s science is corrupt, because since they (the EPA) couldn’t find any real statistics at the 95th percentile confidence level, which is what they generally use, they lowered their confidence level. That is, according to the *focus* of the study, a problem with their methodology in general. It was one example of 4.

That’s similar to the objection about MBH98’s hockey stick. It’s not about the results of the study, it’s about the slippery slope behind the corruption of science itself.

When it comes down to a discussion like this, I’m sorry, but I have to vote on the side of science.

You lose.

If you can come up with something valid, by all means post it – but you’re a long way from doing that now. I hope that wasn’t your best shot.

P.S. Thanks for pointing out the OISM petition:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Looks like interesting reading. Did you have a specific problem with *that*?

But since you ask, let us look at the first url, which starts with:
*************************
Philip Morris contributes substantial sums of money to organizations whose mandate is to influence the public policy decision making process. Part of the rationale for these contributions is to maintain access to unofficial players in the economic/political arena who may emerge or re-emerge as key official players.

In order to further develop these relationships, and to provide a forum in which senior management can have intimate discussions with these individuals, I am proposing a public policy discussion series to be held at corporate headquarters on a semi-regular basis . I envision periodic (say every other month) briefing sessions conducted by one of these individuals on a topic of mutual agreement, followedd by an open give-and-take with senior management . In order to maximize attendance, these sessions could be scheduled around a breakfast or luncheon . Given the good relations we have with most of these organizations, I would hope these sessions could be done gratis; we could agree to pick up
expenses.
***********************

and then goes on to list the organizations and contacts. With the exception of Brookings all right wing organizations who have been quite active in various denialisms and providing platforms for the usual suspects such as Singer, Seitz, Lindzen, etc.

Then we have the second url recommending a $100,000 unrestricted contribution to AEI.

So, let us recap again. hank showed that Lindzen was deeply involved in denial of the harm that smoking tobacco does.

Seitz has a very long association with the tobacco companies and their attempts to deny the harm that tobacco does http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/507720494-0525.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028359649-9650.html
and, of course, this gem
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TI16302044-2113.html
which brings Seitz and Singer together.

Singer is tied back to back with Seitz in a whole bunch of tricky business including the OISM petition (17000 duped dentists deny global warming) and the Heidelberg appeal which was a neat straddle between climate, tobacco and asbestos denialism.

Try again.

Above, we showed that Singer, Seitz and Lindzen were part of the group that made “Faustian bargains between scientists and the industry,” wrt tobacco. They are certainly prominent climate change denialists. They interact through a small group of rich foundations and institutes.

Roger was asked to take a position on the issue and the people involved. He demurrs returns to bashing Hansen, Kennedy and Emmanuel.

Maybe you should actually back up your charges with some facts and organization names Eli, lest anyone think you were just slandering people with different opinions than yours.

I don’t believe I’ve ever written anything about the trustworthiness of any of the people that you mention. I’d actually prefer that folks rely on my own writings on climate policy

This implies that they are untrustworthy, yet you appear to trust them. Why? Let us name some names, Singer, Seitz, Lindzen, etc. Why should anyone trust them or those associated with them?