Who's Funding and Pushing Climate Change Denial:

[amborin]

"Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine.

No. 1: ExxonMobil
No. 2: Lord Christopher Monckton
No. 3: American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
No. 4: Plants Need C02
No. 5: American Petroleum Institute (A.K.A. Energy Citizens)
No. 6: Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (A.K.A. ClimateDepot.com)
No. 7: The Heartland Institute
No. 8: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (A.K.A. The Idso Family)
No. 9: FreedomWorks
No. 10: Tennessee Center for Policy Research (A.K.A. Carnival of Climate Change)
No. 11: Federation for American Coal, Energy and Security (A.K.A. FACES of Coal)
No. 12: Institute for Energy Research (A.K.A. American Energy Alliance)

<http://motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial>

[Frances]

1. And who is pushing for climate change FACTs?

Yes, that very same Gore, who many Dems refused to support in 2000 because Gore was too corporist.

Take notice, those of you who think Obama is too corporist! Gore and Obama are good men, not perfect, but certainly worthy of our support.

Obama would not be dealing with Afghanistan today if more Dems had supported Gore in 2000. If Gore had been elected president he would not have ignored the 9/11 warnings and the twin towers would still be standing.

Sorry if I sound angry against those people who deserted Gore but I see the same thing starting to happen again with Obama.

I will bet that no Obama critics will take any responsibility if we have Palin/Huckabee in the White HOuse in 2012 just as I have never heard a Gore critic take responsibility for W.

[notesdev]

3. Don't even start

These people open by implying that anyone who disagrees with them is the equivalent of a Holocaust denier. They know deep down they're pushing a line of BS, and since they can't defend the BS they attack anyone who isn't stupid enough to swallow it whole. You're wasting your time talking to them, you'd have an easier time convincing a Jesus freak that the object of his worship was just a man.

"Denier" = Godwin's Law FAIL

[amborin]

5. you are condemning the overwhelming evidence of global climate change in past 200 yrs n/t

[notesdev]

12. You mean, since the "Little Ice Age"

Well, duh. 200 years ago we were at a temperature nadir, something that is well documented. By choosing that timeframe, of course you can show warming. But the allegation is that human activity is the cause, and that is a claim not consistent with the record if you look back 1000 years. At the end of the Dark Ages we had something called the Medieval Warming Period which was warmer than today, and of course could not have been caused by industrial activity.

Hence the need of the fraudsters to "get rid of the Medieval Warming Period" and "artificially adjust" the modern temperature record, in order to claim warming. People want to check the data, they fight requests, delete data, claim to have lost other data.

Bottom line, "global warming" doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and with the evidence on hand you don't have to be a climate "scientist" to figure it out.

[Viking12]

25. How do you know there was a MWP?

You've been asked this before. You cannot claim at the same time that paleoclimatic data is worthless and that you know what the temperature was a 1000 years ago. Your position is logically untenable.

[Gabi Hayes]

27. dunno whose axe you're grinding, but I assume you deny anthropogenic sourcing for what's happening,

climate-wise, because the effects of however you choose to describe our curent little 'warming period' are undeniable (Vanuatu, Kiribati, anyone?)

your assertions regarding MWP are arguable, at the very best, and cast grave doubts on the reliability of your POV, despite the possible accuracy of the other, conveniently cherry-picked data you provide, which ignores the overall picture, and leads, inevitably, to the conclusion that there's nothing we can do to alter the inexorable course of planetary warming


for a more thorough discussion of you medieval warm period assertion, I'd suggest going to the following site, where you'll find a more in depth discussion of the misleading version of climatic history you offer here

http://www.grist.org/article/the-medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm-as-today/



the follwing quote from the above link deals with your contribution much better than I can:

John Tukey was one of the world's greatest statisticians, and he had good observations:

"Far better an approximate answer to the right question, which is often vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question, which can always be made more precise."

"The combination of some data and an aching desire for an answer does not ensure that a reasonable answer can be extracted from a given body of data."
Whether or not we are now warmer than the MWP is the wrong question, and in fact, as interesting as it might be, arguing it gives a perfect opportunity for anyone who wants to create clouds of confusion to do so.

The argument "it's warmer than the MWP, and therefore we should do something about AGW" invites the response "but we really don't know", and then lots of confusing side-tracks.

The stronger argument to me is: "Whether we are warmer or not already, we're going up fast, and the physics says we're going to keep going up, we have 10X more people on the planet, and 50% of the world's population lives within 120 miles of the ocean, and anything we can do to slow down the inevitable temperature rise will give more time for ecosystems adaptation, will likely cost less, and maybe will save some wars (over water, if nothing else)."

Suppose someone could magically duplicate our current temperature sensors 10,000 years back, and have a current-technology record from then. Climatologists would be ecstatic, and models might improve, but otherwise, what would you do differently if it turned out the MWP were global, and a little warmer than now? or global and a little cooler? or not global?

anyone with less than a comprehensive background in atmospheric science, etc., can go here for extended discussions of the current climate situation, with extended comments by people with real expertise. lots of it is way over my head, but one can make up one's own mind, relatively uncolored by disingenuous contributions like the ones referred to here

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

some of the topics available for discussion at the 'skeptics' link:

Stages of Denial
There's nothing happening
Inadequate evidence
*There is no evidence
*One record year is not global warming
*The temperature record is simply unreliable
*One hundred years is not enough
*Glaciers have always grown and receded
*Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
*Mauna Loa is a volcano
*The scientists aren't even sure

Contradictory evidence
*It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
*Antarctic ice is growing
*The satellites show cooling
*What about mid-century cooling?
*Global warming stopped in 1998
*But the glaciers are not melting
*Antarctic sea ice is increasing
*Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
*Sea level in the Arctic is falling
*Some sites show cooling

No consensus
*Global warming is a hoax
*There is no consensus
*Position statements hide debate
*Consensus is collusion
*Peiser refuted Oreskes

We don't know why it's happening
Models don't work
*We cannot trust unproven computer models
*The models don't have clouds
*If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
*Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high

Prediction is impossible
*We can't even predict the weather next week
*Chaotic systems are not predictable

We can't be sure
*Hansen has been wrong before
*If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
*The scientists aren't even sure
*They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

Climate change is natural
It happened before
*It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
*The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
*Greenland used to be green
*Global warming is nothing new!
*The hockey stick is broken
*Vineland was full of grapes

It's part of a natural change
*Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
*Mars and Pluto are warming too
*CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
*The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
*Climate is always changing
*Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
*The CO2 rise is natural
*We are just recovering from the LIA

everything you claim to be true and accurate is dealt with somewhere on this site

[notesdev]

35. Recycling talking points

is not an argument, it's a deliberate attempt to waste peoples' time.

I have given both sides a long, critical look, and there is no question that the Warmers do anything and everything they can to obfuscate, confuse, stoke fear, employ logical fallacies, and blatantly and knowingly lie to make their case.

What people call "climate science" these days is even less well grounded in fact than astrology, and its adherents are simply relentless regurgitators of propaganda. Hence the inability to provide a straightforward response to people who point out simple, uncontroversial facts that put a stake through the heart of Warmer dogma.

After studying the alleged scientific basis for AGW, it was clearly apparent that even if you take these papers at face value and ignore the dubious methodology, lack of verification, and documented scientific fraud, the uncertainty levels embedded within the base assertions are so high that there's no way to confidently make any prediction, never mind the value-added political claims that these wild TEOTWAWKI scenarios are proven beyond doubt.

I find the little dance where the politicians make outrageous claims and then when you try and verify the basis of these claims, the "scientists" whose work underlies them say they make no such claim.

The bottom line is that the only warming is coming from the hot air of the Warmers, evidenced by smoke and reflected by mirrors that any person who attempts a serious investigation of the rigor of their claims will inevitably have to conclude are the entirety of the substance of AGW.

[Gabi Hayes]

37. blah blah blah. you spout the same crap you appear to criticize, couched in

transparently phony assertions of studying both sides

pretty funny, when the 'other side' is almost entirely composed of front groups for the oil/gas/coal industry, or 'scientists' whose expertise is either unrelated to the fields upon which they bloviate (Heartland list, anyone? problably one of your favorites), or bought and paid for by the same groups that are fighting so hard to muddy the waters.

it appears that you're SO out of it that you still cling to the hoary trope abandoned even by the likes of most of those mentioned above: the earth isn't even warming! most of those crooks have changed their strategy to one of denying anthropogenesis, so you're rantings are even less plausible

you can brag all you want about how closely you've 'studied' the issues. you'd have fit in well with those flat earthers who controlled the scientific mainstream four hundred years ago

here's an idea: why don't you run back on over to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research and keep that nut company in his office? he'd welcome some help spewing more meretricious garbage.

[Viking12]

7. Another victim bully.

Congratulations, you've progressed through all 4 stages of the Crank-How-To

Step one: Develop a wacky idea.
Step two: Disseminate your idea
Step three: (Not) Responding to Criticism
Step four: Get Persecuted!

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vadawg]

8. okay heres what i dont get, we use tree rings to gather data of climate for the past

but when the same tree ring data dosent marry the actual thermometer temps of recent times we substitute the ring data with thermometer data for the recent times. Now we use the tree ring data from the past (that we say is accurate) and the actual temps from the recent past (due to the tree rings not being accurate) to show a trend for both the recent past and the past... am i the only one who thinks that something isnt right here..

[Viking12]

9. Start here

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf

Then go here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6771/abs/403756a0.html


Thanks for playing

[amborin]

11. great articles! thanks for posting!

[amborin]

10. tree ring data is only 1 source

of data showing past climate conditions

snip

<http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html>




"Beginning in the 18th century, humans began to burn coal and gas and oil to produce energy and goods. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere began to rise, at first slowly and now more quickly. Many of the activities we do every day like turning the lights on, cooking food, or heating or cooling our homes rely on energy sources like coal and oil that emit carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. We're taking millions of years worth of carbon, stored beneath the earth as fossil fuels, and releasing it into the atmosphere. By now—and this is the second number—the planet has 390 parts per million CO2 – and this number is rising by about 2 parts per million every year.

Scientists are now saying that's too much – that number is higher than any time seen in the recorded history of our planet – and we're already beginning to see disastrous impacts on people and places all over the world. Glaciers everywhere are melting and disappearing fast—and they are a source of drinking water for hundreds of millions of people. Mosquitoes, who like a warmer world, are spreading into lots of new places, and bringing malaria and dengue fever with them. Drought is becoming much more common, making food harder to grow in many places.

Sea levels have begun to rise, and scientists warn that they could go up as much as several meters this century. If that happens, many of the world's cities, island nations, and farmland will be underwater. The oceans are growing more acidic because of the CO2 they are absorbing, which makes it harder for animals like corals and clams to build and maintain their shells and skeletons. Coral reefs could start dissolving at an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 450-500 ppm. These impacts are combining to exacerbate conflicts and security issues in already resource-strapped regions.

The Arctic is sending us perhaps the clearest message that climate change is occurring much more rapidly than scientists previously thought. In the summer of 2007, sea ice was roughly 39% below the summer average for 1979-2000, a loss of area equal to nearly five United Kingdoms. Many scientists now believe the Arctic will be completely ice free in the summertime between 2011 and 2015, some 80 years ahead of what scientists had predicted just a few years ago.

snip

<http://www.350.org/about/science>

[notesdev]

14. You're not the only one

The a plant physiology professor at the same institution raised the same question and found the response unconvincing. They're basing their claims about the historical temperature record - which contradict everything we knew up to 1990 - on a sample of 12 trees, one of which shows an extremely atypical ring pattern. They mix other data in to claim multiple sources, but then they weight the tree data by a factor of 390 relative to other data. It's a complete scandal, which is why people are up in arms about it. Others weren't able to get the data before the 'hack' (imo a whistleblower document dump), as it was hidden or deleted. Now we know, global warming claims are based in a terrible excuse for scientific inquiry and untampered-with data provides no basis for their claims.

[amborin]

16. you are mis-stating the facts and denying the overwhelming evidence

[notesdev]

17. I see, the overwhelming evidence of your one-liner

[amborin]

18. you keep posting talking points straight out of the

denier's tool kit

[notesdev]

21. There goes Godwin's Law again

all you can do is call people who disagree with you Nazis.

Classic marker of someone who knows they are spouting bullshit.

[amborin]

23. please stop condemning scientific data

[notesdev]

26. falsified data isn't scientific

[ArbustoBuster]

41. It's not falsified.

1) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-denial-industry
3) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/07/george-monbiot-blog-climate-denial-industry

Now, you can either back up YOUR claims with references like I did or you can kindly peddle your BS elsewhere.

[Viking12]

24. He's not mis-stating. He's making shit up.

and when you call him on it he cries like a baby claiming that a common word in the English language is some sort of dogwhistle.

[Gabi Hayes]

28. check this, from another thread in which this peson's true sensibilities are revealed:

I'm not going to make myself popular among the followers of that religion, but I am familiar with the scientific method and "global warming" has always struck me as offensive to it.

I have been slack-jawed more than once, watching the extreme energy consumption excesses of Al Gore - the palatial mansions far beyond his needs, the constant travel on private jets, the SUVs - and trying to figure out how the true believers can be so blind to the complete disconnect between how he lives and what he claims to be true. He is well on his way to becoming a billionaire, profits sucked right out of the pockets of the suckers who took him at his word... and still, it doesn't seem to register with them that his behavior does not match up with his words. If carbon dioxide is such a problem, why is he producing it at a rate unmatched by all but a few other human beings on the planet?

Nor did they blink an eye at the sudden Orwellian switch from "global warming" to "climate change", just as the hard proof was becoming known, that the planet as a whole is not warming at all. Real scientists don't find reasons to explain that away - they say, these are the facts, this is the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.

What people today call "climate change", not all that long ago was described as "talking about the weather", i.e. wasting time deliberately discussing nothing of value. In answer to an old question out of an '80s song, I would rather we should talk about the government.
The polar bear ate my temperature data

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4155087#4155399

from post #29 at the above link. lots more at that thread. you can see it's a waste of time 'reasoning' with this one. curious as to why it's spending so much time here

[amborin]

29. you're right

'it' seems to post its garbage on every climate change thread

[The Midway Rebel]

33. Probably against some kind of rule on DU

to call folks out but, an interesting case study in the definition of the word "shill" could be made by following the posts of certain posters on DU. Just sayin'.

[amborin]

34. yes

and it's interesting to see how some are so consistently touting a particular agenda....

maybe part of what this book discusses:

"Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming," by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore, is a brilliant exposé of this war on science. Hoggan is the co-founder of DeSmogBlog.com and Littlemore is the web site's lead writer.

Their new book is a chilling description of greed, conflicts of interest and the oil and coal industries' shenanigans; it picks up where other books, like Ross Gelbspan's "The Heat Is On" (1997) and "Boiling Point" (2004), left off."

<http://www.truthout.org/1209096>

[notesdev]

36. This creepy stalking by a handful of Warmer acolytes

is what I believe is against the rules here.

They put more effort into cross referencing my posts on the subject than in verifying their own claims on the subject, which tells you all you need to know about them.

[Gabi Hayes]

38. so why don't you alert, you little baby?

can't defend your oil company talking points so you cry uncle?

last refuge sort of whining, sounds like to me.

can't logically defend your BS, which makes sense, since it's such obvious right wing spewage, so I can understand why you don't have anything else which to resort

nice try, though

play again soon

not

[notesdev]

40. That's an easy one

I prefer that the Warmers' comments stand so everyone can see what they are about.

It's not on every issue that those on the other side are so effective in undermining their own cause!

[Gabi Hayes]

42. oh. you mean, like your comments, fresh from that crackpot Tennessee astroturfer, about Gore?

nobody's paying any attention to you.....face it

your comments here have exactly the effects of those you accuse the sane/non-venal posters

you exhibit all the symptoms of the typical right wing shit stirrer:

bogus 'factoids'

misleading, illogical interpretations of said phony, cherry-picked 'data'

refusal to respond to non-refutable assertions of fact (when not fatuously denying their obvious reality)

and, most humorously of all, classic projection

keep it up....the more you spew, the more amusing you become. thanks for the laughs

[amborin]

39. actually, any time I post about human-caused climate change, you reply to deny

invariably

[amborin]

30. yes

i wonder if some of these garbage-spewers are on the staff of exxonmobil

[Gabi Hayes]

31. could be Heartland Institute. they're very high profile, and have a coterie of

well-spoken climate denier PR hacks, who cloak themselves in scientific garb/newspeak, but have no real credentials in the areas in which they purport to be expert, like the list of hundreds of 'professionals' who attest to the non-problem of global warming:

http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/1618

Kevin Grandia, who we are proud to be well acquainted with through working together in the ecoblogosphere, has just been through a bit of a saga.

Curious about the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Prominent Scientists" who deny global warming, Kevin decided to contact some of the folks on the list. He put together a list of 150 email addresses...simply the addresses he found it most easy to acquire. After only 24 hours, he'd received 45 emails from angry scientists saying that they, in no way, denied anthropogenic global warming.

It turns out that the heartland institute had never told the scientists they were going on the list, nor did they check to see if these people actually had any doubts about the causes of climate change. Just a sampling of quotes from emails Kevin received:

I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.

I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.

Please remove my name. What have done is totally unethical!!

The Heartland Institute has been publicizing their list for years, and not a single journalist took the time to check the names on the list. The Heartland Institute has now distanced itself from the list, and withdrawn its claim that they are supported by 500 prominent global warming skeptic scientists. But they have yet to apologize. Kevin deserves a great big "thank you" from the world. Check out DeSmogBlog and, if you think he's as awesome as I do, you might even consider donating to help him keep DeSmogBLog alive.

read the comments at the bottom; some are hilarious. this list of 'scientists' is typical of the BS posters/shills like the above-referenced are trying to peddle

[amborin]

32. thanks for posting!

[Junkdrawer]

20. Which of the OP firms?

You don't have post a number, just stamp you hoof...

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Add the Koch Brothers

[RedCloud]

4. better yet subtract by sending them off to Iraq to fight for oil in person!

[sixmile]

6. They have succeeded. Congratulate and emulate.

The only thing they HAD to accomplish was the placing of a doubt into the collective conscious. They have done that with surgical precision.
See, kids? That's what lots of money can do.

[Hekate]

15. How is it I was only Rec#2? Were the Ignores Unreccing this important list? nt

[amborin]

19. more on how Exxon Mobil spreads its lies:

"In 2005, Mother Jones reported that the oil company had pumped $8 million into more than 40 think tanks, media outlets, and consumer groups that questioned the existence of climate change. In 2007, new CEO Rex Tillerson announced that the company would try to "soften" its dirty image. A few months later, it pledged to stop funding groups "whose position on climate change could divert attention" from the need for clean energy.

Yet corporate records released earlier this year show that the world's largest petroleum company hasn't cut off the cash altogether. In 2008, it gave at least $50,000 to the Heritage Foundation, which recently published a report claiming that the Waxman-Markey climate bill will kill millions of jobs, boost electricity prices 90 percent, and cost a typical family $4,600 per year in taxes and extra energy costs by 2035. Sarah Palin posted a segment of the report...."

snip

In 2008, ExxonMobil also gave more than $100,000 to the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which supports overseas groups that often oppose action on global warming. Atlas' websites in 14 countries translate and syndicate stories and videos such as a recent interview about "Climategate" with the Cato Institute's resident global warming skeptic, Patrick Michaels. In addition, it has supported more than 200 libertarian think tanks in countries including Spain, China, and Ghana. In the lead-up to Copenhagen, more than 76 think tanks in 48 countries signed its petition against "Green Protectionism," creating the impression of a global grassroots movement opposed to action on climate change. Since 1998, ExxonMobil and its foundations have given Atlas nearly $1 million.

Meanwhile, Exxon is basking in the glow of its supposed change of heart. In August, Forbes (whose publisher, Steve Forbes, sits on the board of the FreedomWorks Foundation) hailed Tillerson for not being "as gruff and forceful as his predecessor Lee R. Raymond in dismissing global warming alarmists." For that, and the company's efforts to pump more natural gas, the magazine named ExxonMobil "Green Company of the Year"

<http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial-exxon>

[arcadian]

22. That Lord Christopher Monckton is a real peach

Here is view on AIDS:


Monckton's views on how the AIDS epidemic should be tackled have been the subject of some controversy. In an article for The American Spectator entitled "AIDS: A British View",<39> written for the January 1987 issue of The American Spectator, he argued that "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

[Uncle Joe]

43. Kicked but too late to recommend.

Thanks for the thread, amborin.:thumbsup: