The Mercatus Center: A Tentacle of the Deregulation-Loving Kochtopus Helping in the Effort to Deny Climate Change and Eviscerate the EPA

Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger

From Climate Science Watch (March 18, 2010): To the libertarians, the widely-shared scientific assessment that human-caused climate change will likely produce major harmful consequences — and the communication of this evidence to the public by the leading climate scientists — poses a particularly serious threat. An informed public concerned about the likelihood of harmful impacts of unchecked global climatic disruption is more likely to call for significant government action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. In order to block proactive government policymaking and keep corporate interests unregulated, libertarian groups have focused a significant part of their efforts on climate change on distorting the science to confuse public opinion, denying the seriousness of the problem, and, most recently, impugning the integrity of the climate science community. The Koch brothers have stepped forward with deep pockets to bankroll such efforts.

Many people have already heard about the libertarian billionaire businessmen brothers Charles and David Koch who have helped to found and/or fund a number of non-profit organizations and think tanks—including the Cato Institute, Americans for Prosperity, ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), the Federalist Society, the Reason Foundation, and the Heritage Foundation—whose aim seems to be the advancement of the Kochs’ agenda “that government taxes and regulations impinge on prosperity.”

What many people may not be aware of is the number of academic centers/institutions that the Kochs are also helping to fund at both public and private colleges and universities—including Florida State University, West Virginia University, Brown University, Troy University, and Utah State University.

I’m going to focus on just one of these Koch-funded academic centers in this post—the Mercatus Center, a conservative think tank located at George Mason University in Virginia—and on Susan B. Dudley, a woman who worked at Mercatus and was then appointed to a regulatory position at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2007.


In a 2004 Wall Street Journal article, the Mercatus Center was described as “the most important think tank you’ve never heard of.” Previously known as the Center for the Study of Free Market Processes, the Mercatus Center was founded by Richard Fink—with a grant from Charles Koch. Koch currently serves on the center’s Board of Directors—as does Fink who is also an executive vice president and a member of the board of directors of Koch Industries, Inc.

Jane Mayer wrote the following in Covert Operations, an article that appeared in the New Yorker in 2010: The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation.

Public Citizen, a group founded by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, has called the Mercatus Center  “a wholly-owned subsidiary of Koch Industries and other corporate interests.” Richard Fink claims, however, that the center does not actively promote the Koch company’s private interests. He said that Koch “has other means of fighting its battles” in Washington and that they never had a nonprofit advance their agenda. Some people would disagree.

Thomas McGarity, a University of Texas law professor who specializes in environmental issues, told Mayer that “Koch has been constantly in trouble with the E.P.A., and Mercatus has constantly hammered on the agency.” Another environmental lawyer who spoke to Mayer said that Mercatus was “a means of laundering economic aims.”  The lawyer described the strategy: “You take corporate money and give it to a neutral-sounding think tank,” which “hires people with pedigrees and academic degrees who put out credible-seeming studies. But they all coincide perfectly with the economic interests of their funders.”

Rob Stein, a Democratic strategist, told Mayer that the relationship between George Mason University and Mercatus is an unusual arrangement. “George Mason is a public university, and receives public funds. Virginia is hosting an institution that the Kochs practically control.” Stein claimed that Mercatus was “ground zero for deregulation policy in Washington.”

According to Sourcewatch, Mercatus “has engaged in campaigns involving deregulation, especially environmental deregulation.” It has been reported that fourteen of the twenty-three regulations that George W. Bush put on his hit list were first suggested by academics who worked at the Mercatus Center.

In 2010, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute released a study that named Koch Industries as one of this country’s top ten polluters. That same year, Greenpeace released a report titled Koch Industries Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine. In the report’s executive summary, Greenpeace stated that Koch Industries had “become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition.” (Greenpeace also reported that Koch foundations have contributed more than $48 million in grants to “climate opposition groups” since 1997—and that more than half of that has been donated since 2005.)



Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, wrote in 2007 about George W. Bush’s re-nomination of “a veritable rogues’ gallery of anti-environmental figures to key posts in federal agencies.” O’Donnell said that Susan B. Dudley, one of the nominees, was “a true anti-regulatory zealot. As director of regulatory studies at the industry-funded Mercatus Center, Dudley was like a wrecking ball out to smash key safeguards.” He added, “Putting Dudley in this key federal post would be like naming comedian Michael Richards to head the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.”

According to Lee Fang of Think Progress, George W. Bush appointed Susan B. Dudley, the director of the Regulatory Studies Program at the Mercatus Center, to head the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)—after the center had attacked the “EPA regulation of tailpipe greenhouse gases by challenging the science of climate change.” (Dudley’s was a recess appointment in 2007.)

O’Donnell said that as head of OIRA Dudley would have one “of the most obscure yet powerful jobs in Washington. The person in this position can, largely without public scrutiny, interfere with actions of agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, and become a conduit for industries seeking to avoid federal health, environmental and safety standards.”

The Cost is Too High: How Susan Dudley Threatens Public Protections, a report produced by Public Citizen and OMB Watch in 2006, said that while Dudley worked at Mercatus, she “attacked proposed regulations in formal submissions to government agencies and orchestrated campaigns to derail other safeguards already on the books.” The report also claimed that Dudley displayed “an extreme anti-regulatory ideology” and “questioned the merit of regulation altogether in congressional testimony and regulatory comments, and she has urged weakening, if not eliminating entirely, public safeguards.”

Dudley worked to oppose public health regulations as a “hidden tax” that hinders profits when she was at Mercatus. She opposed all of the following: EPA plans that would have set tougher standards for smog; lower-polluting cars and SUVs—as well as cleaner gasoline; air bags in cars; stronger regulations for arsenic in drinking water; measures that could help curb global warming. (Think Progress)

Dudley has been quoted as stating that the “evidence regarding global warming and human contribution to it is mixed, and…if a slight warming does occur, historical evidence suggests it is likely to be beneficial, occurring at night, in the winter, and at the poles.” In her testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety/Committee on Environment and Public on April 24, 1997, Dudley said: “Ozone in the troposphere, like ozone in the stratosphere, has the beneficial effect of screening ultraviolet radiation, which is known to have various health and welfare effects including melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer, cataracts, and crop and fishery damage.”

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), a nonprofit consortium of more than seventy universities that offer Ph.D.s in atmospheric and related sciences, doesn’t see it the same way Dudley does. UCAR has said the following about ozone in the troposphere:

Ozone occurs naturally at ground-level in low concentrations. The two major sources of natural ground-level ozone are hydrocarbons, which are released by plants and soil, and small amounts of stratospheric ozone, which occasionally migrate down to the earth’s surface. Neither of these sources contributes enough ozone to be considered a threat to the health of humans or the environment.

But the ozone that is a byproduct of certain human activities does become a problem at ground level and this is what we think of as ‘bad’ ozone. With increasing populations, more automobiles, and more industry, there’s more ozone in the lower atmosphere. Since 1900 the amount of ozone near the earth’s surface has more than doubled. Unlike most other air pollutants, ozone is not directly emitted from any one source. Tropospheric ozone is formed by the interaction of sunlight, particularly ultraviolet light, with hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, which are emitted by automobiles, gasoline vapors, fossil fuel power plants, refineries, and certain other industries.

And this is what UCAR said about the negative impacts of tropospheric ozone:

While stratospheric ozone shields us from ultraviolet radiation, in the troposphere this irritating, reactive molecule damages forests and crops; destroys nylon, rubber, and other materials; and injures or destroys living tissue. It is a particular threat to people who exercise outdoors or who already have respiratory problems.

Ozone affects plants in several ways. High concentrations of ozone cause plants to close their stomata. These are the cells on the underside of the plant that allow carbon dioxide and water to diffuse into the plant tissue. This slows down photosynthesis and plant growth. Ozone may also enter the plants through the stomata and directly damage internal cells.

Rubber, textile dyes, fibers, and certain paints may be weakened or damaged by exposure to ozone. Some elastic materials can become brittle and crack, while paints and fabric dyes may fade more quickly.

When ozone pollution reaches high levels, pollution alerts are issued urging people with respiratory problems to take extra precautions or to remain indoors. Smog can damage respiratory tissues through inhalation. Ozone has been linked to tissue decay, the promotion of scar tissue formation, and cell damage by oxidation. It can impair an athlete’s performance, create more frequent attacks for individuals with asthma, cause eye irritation, chest pain, coughing, nausea, headaches and chest congestion and discomfort. It can worsen heart disease, bronchitis, and emphysema.

Prior to Dudley’s appointment to OIRA, Scott Silver, executive director of Wild Wilderness, wrote in an email exchange with Media Transparency that “Dudley would be the most anti-regulatory zealot within the Bush Administration, bar none. Her ideology is based upon a core belief that regulations are generally bad and there should be no regulation unless it can be proven to be cost effective and supported from within the market place.”

The Cost is Too High report said that Dudley’s radicalism put her “right at home at Mercatus”—which was “founded by corporate interests and endowed by large corporations, free-market oriented foundations, and leaders from the corporate world”  and “has long operated at the intersection of money, power, and influence in order to promote corporate special interests at the expense of the public interest.”

Note: Susan B. Dudley is a Research Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration and is serving as the Director of the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University.


EPA Nemesis: Mercatus Center Another Koch Think Tank (Sourcewatch/Center for Media and Democracy)

Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group Mercatus Center (Greenpeace)

From Promoting Acid Rain To Climate Denial: Over 20 Years Of David Koch’s Polluter Front Groups (Think Progress)

The White House’s Agents Of Environmental Corruption (Think Progress)

Koch’s Web of Influence (Center for Public Integrity)

Koch-Powered Tea Party Pushes Climate Denial Bill In New Hampshire (Think Progress)

Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama. (The New Yorker)

The White House’s Agents Of Environmental Corruption (Think Progress)

Does Bush know how to pick ’em or does he know how to pick ’em? (Daily Kos)

The Cost is Too High: How Susan Dudley Threatens Public Protections (Public Citizen & OMB Watch)

Bush Nominates Anti-Regulatory Zealot To Head ‘Super-Powerful’ Public Safety Office (Think Progress)

Stop Susan Dudley: The air you breathe depends on it (Public Citizen)

Dudley Do-Wrong of George Mason University (Media Transparency)

With Senate on break, Bush appoints officials: The three, including a contentious regulatory director, most likely would not have been approved by lawmakers. (Los Angeles Times)

I Am OMB and I Write the Rules (Washington Post)

On First Day Of New Congress, Koch Operatives Met With GOP Chairman Planning To Gut The Clean Air Act (Think Progress)

ALEC Exposed: The Koch Connection (The Nation)

Exclusive: Tea Party Billionaire David Koch Denies Climate Change, Shrugs Off His Carbon Pollution (ThinkProgress)

The Koch Energy and Commerce Committee (Turley Blog)

Koch Industries multibillionaire Koch brothers bankroll attacks on climate change science and policy (Climate Science Watch)

The Most Important Think Tank You’ve Never Heard Of (Richard C. Young)

Rule Breaker: In Washington, Tiny Think Tank Wields Big Stick on Regulation (Mercatus)

Meet Koch Industries (Oil Watchdog)

Mercatus Center—Koch Industries: Still Fueling Climate Denial [REPORT] (PolluterWatch)

Koch Industries: Still Fueling Climate Denial [REPORT] (PolluterWatch)

Koch Industries: Still Fueling Climate Denial 2011 Update (Greenpeace)

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine (Greenpeace)

The Kochs’ Mercatus Center and Environmental Deregulation (The Green Market)

Does This Matter? Eliminating the EPA? (Watchdog Progressive)

REPORT: Koch Fueling Far Right Academic Centers At Universities Across The Country (ThinkProgress)

FSU Accepts Funds From Charles Koch In Return For Control Over Its Academic Freedom (ThinkProgress)

Billionaire’s role in hiring decisions at Florida State University raises questions (St. Petersburg Times)

VIDEO: Why Oil Billionaire David Koch Is Secretly Funding Astroturf To Repeal CA Clean Energy Law AB 32 (Think Progress)

Wegman scandal rocks cornerstone of climate denial (Think Progress)

Institute for Humane Studies (IHS) – Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group (Greenpeace)

Climate Change Deniers Without Borders: How American oil money is pumping up climate change skeptics abroad—and how they could derail any progress made in Copenhagen. (Mother Jones)

Bush Obstructs EPA, OSHA, CDC Regulations (Mother Jones)

Koch Industries and Lobbying in Washington (Desmogblog)

Koch and George Mason University (Desmogblog)

Still Hiring Tree Haters (Tom Paine)

Another big time fox nominated to be gatekeeper to the henhouse (Watching the Watchers)

Charles Koch’s Assault on Academic Freedom (Mother Jones)

In Washington, Tiny Think Tank Wields Big Stick on Regulation: With White House Ex-Staffers, Mercatus Helps Zap Codes It Says Restrict Business (Wall Street Journal)

Statutory Interpretation in the Era of OIRA (Georgetown University law Center)

Testimony of Susan E. Dudley
Before the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety
Committee on Environment and Public Works
April 24, 1997

303 thoughts on “The Mercatus Center: A Tentacle of the Deregulation-Loving Kochtopus Helping in the Effort to Deny Climate Change and Eviscerate the EPA

  1. Blouise,

    I found the following at GWU’s Regulatory studies center’s site:

    Policy on Research Integrity

    The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, as part of the George Washington University, is subject to University policies regarding integrity of research and conflict of interest. The GW Regulatory Studies Center scholars independently pursue high quality research to illuminate regulatory theory, policy, and practice; the Center does not take institutional positions on issues. To maintain its independence and the quality and integrity of its products, the GW Regulatory Studies Center does not accept funding that stipulates predetermined results or that limits dissemination of its scholarly activity or research. While the Center occasionally files public comments on specific regulations, it does so from the perspective of the public interest, and will not accept direct funding for individual comments.

  2. Blouise, The GWU Regulatory Studies Center is a a recent (2009) construct and the inital grant was from Searle Freedom Trust. Searle Freedom Trust is heavy into “individual freedom and economic liberty”. Daniel Searle was one of the American Enterprise Institutes’s largest donors.

    This is exactly the kind of purchased scholarship-respectability Elaine’s (OUTSTANDING!) article details. Just because GWU employs one of my most respected advocates for free speech doesn’t mean it’s not subject to the same ol’ money chase that every other university is. Education is a business after all. Kinda’ disappointing though.

    Here are the dots I found and the way I connect them:

    “About the GWU Regulatory Studies Center

    The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center was established in September 2009 to improve regulatory policy by raising awareness of regulations’ effects through research, education, and outreach. RSC is a leading source for applied scholarship in regulatory issues, and a training ground for current and future policy officials who want to understand the effects of regulation and ensure that regulatory policies are designed to make the public better off. … RSC was made possible by an initial grant from the Searle Freedom Trust, but we need additional funding …”

    From the Searle Freedom Trust website:

    “Searle Freedom Trust was founded by Daniel C. Searle in 1998 to foster research and education on public policy issues that affect individual freedom and economic liberty. Through its grantmaking, the foundation seeks to develop solutions to the country’s most important and challenging domestic policy issues.”

    searlefreedomtrust dot org/
    From The National review Online:

    “Daniel C. Searle, R.I.P.
    A great conservative philanthropist dies.

    “However it happened, Searle started reading its books and newsletters and grew closer to the conservative think tank. By the time he died on October 30, at the age of 81, Searle had become one of the largest donors to AEI in its history — and certainly the biggest in the organization’s last 20 years, during its period of preeminence.”

    (AEI=American Enterprise Institute)

  3. Elaine, you are up late- are you taking care of a grandbaby that gets a 2:00am feeding?

    Your article is amazing!. The problem with this kind of paid for scholarship is it is effective. The number of people polled regarding global warming that saw it is a threat and man made is going down from what I have read. Wasn’t it Reagan that said “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do” in reference to smog/ozone? If science won’t validate the claims of the right the right will buy their own science.

  4. Being able to “buy the science” (it’s actually buying the APPEARANCE of science) won’t help Texas or the southwest (and spreading) desertification, the flooding in the midwest, the tornadoes (more severe each year anymore) and the intense winters we’re all getting now. In other words, nature doesn’t care what we think – it just reacts to what we do.

    In fact, now we can expect more earthquakes as a result of glacial melting according to a New Scientist magazine article.

  5. lottakatz,

    Thanks for the information you found. I hadn’t planned to be up so late. It took me longer to finish and post this article with all the links than I had thought. I worked on it for two weeks.

    I was home. I won’t start my regular “nanny granny” duties until December. Still, I’ve been seeing lots of little Julia Anna.



    You mean Rick Perry and his “Day of Prayer” didn’t bring rain to Texas?

  6. War On The EPA: Republican Bills Would Erase Decades Of Protection
    Huffington Post, 10/9/2011

    WASHINGTON — America’s environmental protections are under a sweeping, concerted assault in Congress that could effectively roll back the federal government’s ability to safeguard air and water more than 100 years, Democrats and advocates say.

    The headlines have not been dramatic, and the individual attacks on relatively obscure rules seldom generate much attention beyond those who are most intently focused on environmental regulation.

    But taken together, the separate moves — led by House Republicans — add up to a stunning campaign against governmental regulatory authority that is now surprisingly close to succeeding.

    In just the year since the GOP took control of the House, there have been at least 159 votes held against environmental protections — including 83 targeting the Environmental Protection Agency — on the House floor alone, according to a list compiled by Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

    “Republicans have made an assault on all environmental issues,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the committee. “This is, without doubt, the most anti-environmental Congress in history.”

  7. No Elaine,

    The Tigers Rangers game brought the rain….

    And some of this is way over my depth of understanding….Thank you…

  8. Elaine and Lotta,

    Thank you for the original and follow-up. Suffice it to say that any supposed “scholarship” coming our of GW University’s Regulatory Studies Center will be highly suspect.

  9. This one of the most important posts I have seen on this blawg. And there have been some important stories posted here. This story needs more eyeballs.

    Good work, Elaine.

    An aside, I read somewhere the reason former exterminator and convicted felon Tom DeLay ran for Congress was his unhappiness with EPA regulations on his use of pesticides. He saw the EPA as the mortal enemy of his pest extermination business.

  10. You can document the role of the Koch Bros without invoking Ralph Nader, whose orgs (and who, personally) often has used character assasination as a tool for going after people, including some former employees who’ve gone a tiuny bit off the reservation.

    In talking about regulation and bill writing, it’s important to note that advocacy orgs across the booard engage in this (including Naderites). The real issue is who has more opportunity for this and how that power is acquired, as well as how that power is subject to reasonable checks and balances.

  11. Otteray,

    Time, 9/18/95,9171,983423,00.html

    They used to be small businessmen, griping in obscurity about government red tape. But now they’re big-time Congressmen whose real-life horror stories are making a big impression on Capitol Hill. House majority whip Tom DeLay, a former exterminator, says the Environmental Protection Agency has allowed fire ants to trample the South. Georgia dentist Charles Norwood says federal regulators have made it hard for children to believe in the tooth fairy. And Cass Ballenger, a North Carolina plastic-packaging manufacturer, says labyrinthine EPA rules have cost his business more than $1 million. Now, in the name of regulatory reform, DeLay, Norwood and Ballenger are attempting to de-fang and defund their old bureaucratic nemeses. Yet a closer look at their tales reveals that in terms of accuracy, they are more suited to the campfire than Congress.

    Many people in business have valid stories of the burdens of regulations gone awry. But this year the Republican majority has filled the Capitol with stories of absurd excesses, many of them apocryphal. According to one bogus story, the Federal Government requires buckets to leak so children won’t drown in them. Another says sand has been ruled a toxic substance. Nevertheless, myth and personal anecdote are powerful weapons.

    “Fire ants are taking over the entire South,” says DeLay, who until last year was the owner of Albo Pest Control in Houston. DeLay studied biology in college and went to work at a pesticide-formulation company in the early 1970s. There he learned that the EPA was banning Mirex, a pesticide that kills fire ants, aggressive interlopers from South America with a painful bite. DeLay, who believes Mirex is harmless, says this was his first exposure to the EPA’s blundering ways. He claims that the delicensing of Mirex and another pesticide, chlordane, severely affected his extermination business, costing him more to do less.

    While fire ants have spread northward, the EPA doesn’t think the problem is serious enough to outweigh the potential dangers of the pesticides to humans. According to the EPA, studies done in the 1970s indicated that Mirex was present in human mothers’ milk all over the South. The agency says Mirex and chlordane are both dangerous to human health. “We call Mirex a possible human carcinogen. Mr. DeLay might disagree with that, but we believe the studies,” says Sylvia Lowrance, an EPA spokeswoman. Other nonpartisan groups, including the Inter national Agency for Research on Cancer, agree . Both pesticides are banned in some European and South American countries.

  12. Otteray,

    Rep. Austin Scott Warns The EPA Employs ‘Gestapo Tactics’ In Enforcing Lead Paint Regulations
    Think Progress
    March 3, 2011

    Freshman Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) took GOP EPA-bashing to another level Wednesday when he accused the environmental agency of using “Gestapo tactics” in its dealings with a landlord who used lead-based paint on his property, but failed to obtain his tenants’ consent:

    Freshman Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) was angered by a story he heard in his district last week. The constituent, who owns five rental properties, was fined $10,000 by EPA for each property for failing to have his tenants sign lead-based paint disclosure forms.

    Scott might be thinking about the agency’s threat to triple those fines if he’s faced with a vote on rolling back EPA’s climate regulations.

    “They told him essentially that if he wanted to argue with them that they’d fine him $30,000 per house,” Scott said yesterday. “Those are Gestapo tactics.”

    While such rhetoric is outlandish, the underlying beliefs are increasingly common among hard-right conservatives. Eliminating the EPA has become a favorite target for some on the right, including GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, along with Reps. Joe Walsh (R-IL), Pete Olson (R-TX), and Rich Nugent (R-FL).

    Many other conservatives want to drastically reduce the EPA’s ability to protect the environment. Last month, 236 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted for legislation that would effectively prevent any effort “to implement, administer, or enforce any statutory or regulatory requirement pertaining to emissions of greenhouse gases.” Despite this, conservative efforts to undermine the EPA are deeply unpopular with the American public, according to recent surveys:

    – Two of every three Americans oppose Gingrich’s plan to abolish the EPA.

    – 63 percent of Americans across party lines “want the government to be doing more than it’s currently doing” to hold polluters accountable.

    – Nearly seven in 10 “believe that EPA scientists, rather than Congress, should set pollution standards.”

    To be fair, Scott is not the first politician to see similarities between the EPA and Nazis. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay once called the Agency “the Gestapo of Government.” More recently, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) deemed the EPA a “Gestapo bureaucracy” (and compared then-Administrator Carol Browner to Tokyo Rose).

  13. Great stuff, Elaine. One of the reasons I detest concentrations of economic power is that is begets powerful men hell bent on affecting the political environment to preserve that power without any training or sensitivity about the consequences on the people as a whole. Madison understood this when he observed:

    In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country.

    ~Federalist No. 10.

  14. Bdaman,

    What trend are you referring to?

    What is Al Gore the mascot for?


    BTW, we’re having the best Columbus Day weekend–weatherwise–that I can recall. How’s the weather in your neck of the woods?

  15. ” …that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. ~Federalist No. 10.” (mespo quoting Madison)

    Right on target mespo, sir … kudos for such an appropriate post … why in the hell can’t we (the collective we) learn from history?

    Rant follows:

    Madison spent years studying Republics and that foibles of citizens who brought said republics to ruin. Then he set about the business of the Constitution in an attempt to protect and preserve this republic from those who would blindly destroy it. Most all the powerful and/or, monied, citizens of today have had the benefit of a good education yet it would seem they learned nothing. Damn them for the destruction they have brought on us all!

    Rant ended

  16. Blouise,
    It is hard to fight against the money behind the evil. Most people just see the results, and not who is paying for those results.
    Great links Elaine and SM!

  17. What trend are you referring to?

    What is Al Gore the mascot for?

    The trend of people who believe it Climate Change/Global Warming.

    The trend is, less people believe in man made global warming today than say 5-10 years ago. So despite all of the 99% of scientist agree rhetoric people just ain’t buying what they are selling.

    Gore is the mascot and the face of GW

    We had a subtropical storm move into Florida yesterday. We had winds up to 50 mph here last night and I had two trees come down in my yard. There was a tornado reported on the ground less than a mile away.

    We continue to be a thirty year lows for worldwide tropical cyclone activity. This is the 3rd or 4th year in a row we’ve been at this level despite Al Gore telling us that hurricanes will become larger and more powerful. It simply isn’t the case.

    Al Gore is wrong most always. He’s a snake oil salesman.

    To which if he heard me say that he probably would scream bullshit.

  18. We continue to be a thirty year lows for worldwide tropical cyclone activity. This is the 3rd or 4th year in a row we’ve been at this level despite Al Gore telling us that hurricanes will become larger and more powerful. It simply isn’t the case.

    Proir to Irene making land fall. The last hurricane to strike the U.S. was Hurricane Ike.

    Ike September 13, 2008.

    Irene August 27 2011

    Over three years

  19. Bdaman,

    I guess you didn’t get the point of this post. It’s because of “The Koch Climate Denial Machine” and the Kochs’ nonprofit think tanks and organizations promoting their agenda that many people don’t believe in Global Warming/Climate Change. I’d say the billionaire brothers have been very successful in spreading their propaganda.

  20. My guess is that I know more about weather and climate than the right wing propagandists and climate change deniers around here. I fully understand the difference between weather cycles and global climate change. My study and understanding of meteorology and micrometerology has kept me alive to date.

    To deny the impact of human activity on worldwide weather patterns that result in permanent climate change is to deny science, common sense and observable facts. Keep this in mind. When the rest of us are gasping for air, sweltering in newly created deserts and scavenging for potable water, the super rich will still play in their climate controlled palaces and mansions.

  21. Union of Concerned Scientists

    Global Warming Skeptic Organizations

    Greening Earth Society

    The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization. Both used to be located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. Until December 2000, Fred Palmer chaired both institutions. The GES is now chaired by Bob Norrgard, another long-term Western Fuels associate. The Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states that works in part to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries.

    Spin: CO2 emissions are good for the planet; coal is the best energy source we have.

    Affiliated Individuals: Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, David Wojick, Sallie Baliunas, Sylvan Wittwer, John Daley, Sherwood Idso

    Funding: The Greening Earth Society receives its funding from the Western Fuels Association, which in turn receives its funding from its coal and utility company members.

    Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change

    The Center claims to “disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climactic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content.” The Center is led by two brothers, Craig and Keith Idso. Their father, Sherwood Idso, is affiliated with the Greening Earth Society; the Center also shares a board member (Sylvan Wittwer) with GES. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.

    Spin: Increased levels of CO2 will help plants, and that’s good.

    Funding: The Center is extremely secretive of its funding sources, stating that it is their policy not to divulge it funders. There is evidence for a strong connection to the Greening Earth Society (ergo Western Fuels Association).

    Affiliated Individuals: Craig Idso, Keith Idso, Sylvan Wittwer

  22. European polluters financing Senate global warming deniers and climate bill blockers
    The Institute for Southern Studies/Facing South

    Major European polluters are contributing generously to the campaigns of global warming deniers and climate bill blockers in the 2010 U.S. Senate race, according to a new report from Climate Action Network Europe.

    The companies examined in the report include Belgium’s Solvay; Britain’s BP; France’s Lafarge and GDF Suez; Germany’s Bayer, BASF and E.ON; and Luxembourg’s Arcelor-Mittal. Their support for Senators blocking climate action amounts to $240,200 — almost 80 percent of the companies’ total spending in this year’s Senate race.

    “These European companies are simultaneously lobbying against aggressive emissions reductions in Europe — and are arguing that such reductions should not be pursued until the United States takes action,” the report says.

    Among those global warming deniers representing Southern states who received contributions from European polluters:

    * Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) – $1,000 each from Bayer E.ON;
    * Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) – $4,000 from BASF, $2,000 from BP and $1,000 from Bayer;
    * Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) – $5,000 each from Bayer and Lafarge, $2,000 from BASF and $1,000 from BP;
    * Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) – $3,500 from Lafarge and $2,000 each from BASF and BP; and
    * Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) – $5,000 from BASF and $2,500 from GDF Suez.

    Among those recipients from Southern states who helped block action to curb greenhouse gas pollution:

    * Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) – $2,000 from Bayer;
    * Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) – $10,000 from Solvay and $1,000 from Bayer;
    * Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) – $2,500 from GDF Suez and $2,000 from Bayer;
    * Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) – $15,000 from BASF, $10,000 from Solvay, $7,000 from Bayer, $6,000 from Lafarge, $4,500 from GDF Suez, $4,000 from BP and $1,000 from Arcelor-Mittal;
    * Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) – $1,000 from E.ON;
    * Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) – $2,000 from BASF and $1,000 each from Bayer and BP; and
    * Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) – $2,500 from Lafarge.

  23. US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace
    Report identifies Koch Industries giving $73m to climate sceptic groups ‘spreading inaccurate and misleading information’
    John Vidal,
    Tuesday 30 March 2010

    A Greenpeace investigation has identified a little-known, privately owned US oil company as the paymaster of global warming sceptics in the US and Europe.

    The environmental campaign group accuses Kansas-based Koch Industries, which owns refineries and operates oil pipelines, of funding 35 conservative and libertarian groups, as well as more than 20 congressmen and senators. Between them, Greenpeace says, these groups and individuals have spread misinformation about climate science and led a sustained assault on climate scientists and green alternatives to fossil fuels.

    Greenpeace says that Koch Industries donated nearly $48m (£31.8m) to climate opposition groups between 1997-2008. From 2005-2008, it donated $25m to groups opposed to climate change, nearly three times as much as higher-profile funders that time such as oil company ExxonMobil. Koch also spent $5.7m on political campaigns and $37m on direct lobbying to support fossil fuels.

    In a hard-hitting report, which appears to confirm environmentalists’ suspicions that there is a well-funded opposition to the science of climate change, Greenpeace accuses the funded groups of “spreading inaccurate and misleading information” about climate science and clean energy companies.

    “The company’s network of lobbyists, former executives and organisations has created a forceful stream of misinformation that Koch-funded entities produce and disseminate. The propaganda is then replicated, repackaged and echoed many times throughout the Koch-funded web of political front groups and thinktanks,” said Greenpeace.

    “Koch industries is playing a quiet but dominant role in the global warming debate. This private, out-of-sight corporation has become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition. On repeated occasions organisations funded by Koch foundations have led the assault on climate science and scientists, ‘green jobs’, renewable energy and climate policy progress,” it says.

    The groups include many of the best-known conservative thinktanks in the US, like Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato institute, the Manhattan Institute and the Foundation for research on economics and the environment. All have been involved in “spinning” the “climategate” story or are at the forefront of the anti-global warming debate, says Greenpeace.

    Koch Industries is a $100bn-a-year conglomerate dominated by petroleum and chemical interests, with operations in nearly 60 countries and 70,000 employees. It owns refineries which process more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day in the US, as well as a refinery in Holland. It has held leases on the heavily polluting tar-sand fields of Alberta, Canada and has interests in coal, oil exploration, chemicals, forestry, and pipelines.

    The majority of the group’s assets are owned and controlled by Charles and David Koch, two of the four sons of the company’s founder. They have been identified by Forbes magazine as the joint ninth richest Americans and the 19th richest men in the world, each worth between $14-16bn.

    Koch has also contributed money to politicians, the report said, listing 17 Republicans and four Democrats whose campaign funds got more than $10,000from the company.

    Greenpeace accuses the Koch companies of having a notorious environmental record. In 2000 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined Koch industries $30m for its role in 300 oil spills that resulted in more than 3m gallons of crude oil leaking intro ponds, lakes and coastal waters.

    “The combination of foundation-funded front groups, big lobbying budgets, political action campaign donations and direct campaign contributions makes Koch Industries and the Koch brothers among the most formidable obstacles to advancing clean energy and climate policy in the US,” Greenpeace said.

    A spokeswoman for Koch Industries today defended the group’s track record on environmental issues. “Koch companies have consistently found innovative and cost-effective ways to ensure sound environmental stewardship and further reduce waste and emissions of greenhouse gases associated with their operations and products,” said a statement sent to AFP by Melissa Cohlmia, director of communication. She added: “Based on this experience, we support open, science-based dialogue about climate change and the likely effects of proposed energy policies on the global economy.”

    Top 10 Koch beneficiaries 2005-2008

    Mercatus center: ($9.2m received from Koch grants 2005-2008) Conservative thinktank at George Mason University. This group suggested in 2001 that global warming would be beneficial in winter and at the poles. In 2009 they recommended that nothing be done to cut emissions.

    Americans for prosperity. ($5.17m). Have built opposition to clean energy and climate legislation with events across US.

    Institute for humane studies ($1.96m). Several prominent climate sceptics have positions here, including Fred Singer and Robert Bradley.

    Heritage foundation ($1.62m). Conservative thinktank leads US opposition to climate change science.

    Cato Insitute ($1.02m). Thinktank disputes science behind climate change and questions the rationale for taking action.

    Manhattan Institute ($800,000). This institute regularly publishes climate science denials.

    Washington legal foundation ($655,000) Published articles on the business threats posed by regulation of climate change.

    Federalist society for law ($542,000) advocates inaction on global warming

    National center for policy analysis ($130,000) NCPA disseminates climate science scepticism.

    American council on science and health ($113,800) Has published papers claiming that cutting greenhouse emissions would be detrimental to public health.

  24. TPM2012
    Koch Brothers To Spend At Least $200 Million On 2012 Election


    The latest on what President Obama and his fellow Democrats are up against: The conservative billionaires known as the Koch brothers (also known as the things hiding under the bed in progressive nightmares) say they’re going to spend $200 million advancing their cause in the next election.

    Politico’s Ken Vogel reports:

    David and Charles Koch plan to steer more than $200 million — potentially much more — to conservative groups ahead of Election Day, POLITICO has learned. That puts their libertarian-leaning network in the same league as the most active of the groups in the more establishment-oriented network conceived last year by veteran GOP operatives Rove and Ed Gillespie, which plans to raise $240 million.

    Vogel details how this is not just bad news for Democrats. The Kochs have backed the tea party and pushed for a more libertarian-leaning (read: tax-free, hands-off) federal government. For Rove, who has often clashed with the more conservative elements in his party.

    But it’s fair to say most of the money will be aimed right at Democrats, another sign of the unprecedented political spending we’re likely to see next year.

  25. I guess you didn’t get the point of this post. It’s because of “The Koch Climate Denial Machine” and the Kochs’ nonprofit think tanks and organizations promoting their agenda that many people don’t believe in Global Warming/Climate Change.

    No Ms. Elaine I get it. Al Gore and the IPCC have done an excellent job of fear mongering it’s just caught up to them now.

    As they say the proof is in the pudding. It’s easy to see once you take the blinders off.


    The middle class in this country could trample the currently laughable campaign donations if they all acted together.

    $3.59 per eligible voter. That’s how much went into the last election for all candidates. Everyone who makes less than $250k/year, donate $4/week to your favorite candidate’s PAC instead of going to Starbuck’s.

  27. The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial

    In 2006, according to the Pew Research Center, 77 percent of Americans saw “solid evidence” for global warming. By this fall, that figure had dropped to 57 percent—and just 36 percent said they believed that humans are to blame. That’s good news for climate change skeptics and deniers, who have spent years trying to perpetuate the illusion that the reality of climate change is up for debate. Never mind that the scientific consensus is firmly on the side of global warming—for anyone seeking an alternate view, there’s an entire parallel universe where junk science and bogus statistics ricochet through an echo chamber of kooky blogs, “nonpartisan” institutes, and fake “green” and “citizen” groups that are often acting on behalf of the oil and coal industry.

    With Copenhagen kicking off and the overblown “Climategate” scandal making headlines, the deniers have even more fodder for their campaign to kill serious action to slow climate change.

    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

  28. Elaine,
    I agree with you that the climate change deniers are making progress. If the Republicans get control of the Senate and the White House, this planet’s environment is doomed.

  29. You say tomato, I say tomatoes:)

    The ones screaming global warming have done the most damage to the belief in it.

    Solyndra Gate

    Just to name a few. The last three years the IPCC and the WWF have showed their hands then doubled down. They had a good run but just like the tide the belief in Global Warming is on it’s way out.

  30. bdaman:

    are you saying orgs like the Sierra Club have a political axe to grind?

    I think they might, I have seen the North Slope and received a solicitation for money with a picture of Mnt. McKinley and a nice little meadow with wild flowers with the caption drilling in the North Slope will destroy pristine environments.

    I doubt people would really care if they actually saw the North Slope.

    I agree that Global Warming, at least the idea of man made, is on its way out. Personally I love warm weather and really had high hopes for a warmer climate. If I remember correctly the MGW was a great boon to people and the Little Ice Age brought the Black Death.

    I wonder why people would want to stop a phenomenon which is good for human beings?

  31. Wegman exposed: Experts find “shocking” plagiarism in 2006 climate report requested by Joe Barton (R-TX)
    By Joe Romm on Nov 21, 2010

    An influential 2006 congressional report that raised questions about the validity of global warming research was partly based on material copied from textbooks, Wikipedia and the writings of one of the scientists criticized in the report, plagiarism experts say.
    Review of the 91-page report by three experts contacted by USA TODAY found repeated instances of passages lifted word for word and what appear to be thinly disguised paraphrases.

    The evidence has become overwhelming that recent global warming is unprecedented in magnitude and speed and cause (see “Two more independent studies back the Hockey Stick and below). Indeed, as WAG notes, within a few decades, nobody is going to be talking about hockey sticks, they will be talking about right angles or hockey skates (see chart above).

    The disinformers (and the confusionists who Curry favor with them), however, are not merely oblivious to the multiple, independent lines of scientific investigation that lead to that conclusion. They have for over a decade tried to discredit one small piece of that underlying analysis, the Hockey Stick graph developed by Michael Mann, Raymond S. Bradley & Malcolm K. Hughes — continuing their obsession even after that analysis was largely reaffirmed by a 2006 report from the National Academy of Sciences, the “Supreme Court of science.”

    A cornerstone of the disinformer’s ultimately self-destructive attack on climate science is a 2006 report, commissioned by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), and led by George Mason University statistician Edward Wegman, who is now himself under investigation by GMU. You can find all the details you could want about the shoddy analysis of the report at Deep Climate — including his “methodical demolishing of any hint of statistics” in the report, as John Mashey puts it in the comments.

    Here’s more from the stunning USA Today piece:

    “It kind of undermines the credibility of your work criticizing others’ integrity when you don’t conform to the basic rules of scholarship,” Virginia Tech plagiarism expert Skip Garner says.

    Led by George Mason University statistician Edward Wegman, the 2006 report criticized the statistics and scholarship of scientists who found the last century the warmest in 1,000 years.

    “The report was integral to congressional hearings about climate scientists,” says Aaron Huertas of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. “And it preceded a lot of conspiratorial thinking polluting the public debate today about climate scientists.”

    But in March, climate scientist Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts asked GMU, based in Fairfax, Va., to investigate “clear plagiarism” of one of his textbooks.

    Bradley says he learned of the copying from a year-long analysis of the Wegman report made by retired computer scientist John Mashey of Portola Valley, Calif. Mashey’s analysis concludes that 35 of the report’s 91 pages “are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning.” Copying others’ text or ideas without crediting them violates universities’ standards, according to Liz Wager of the London-based Committee on Publication Ethics.

    “The matter is under investigation,” says GMU spokesman Dan Walsch by e-mail. In a phone interview, Wegman said he could not comment at the university’s request. In an earlier e-mail Wegman sent to Joseph Kunc of the University of Southern California, however, he called the plagiarism charges “wild conclusions that have nothing to do with reality.”

    The plagiarism experts queried by USA TODAY disagree after viewing the Wegman report:

    “¢ “Actually fairly shocking,” says Cornell physicist Paul Ginsparg by e-mail. “My own preliminary appraisal would be ‘guilty as charged.’ “

    “¢”If I was a peer reviewer of this report and I was to observe the paragraphs they have taken, then I would be obligated to report them,” says Garner of Virginia Tech, who heads a copying detection effort. “There are a lot of things in the report that rise to the level of inappropriate.”

    “¢”The plagiarism is fairly obvious when you compare things side-by-side,” says Ohio State’s Robert Coleman, who chairs OSU’s misconduct committee.

    The report was requested in 2005 by Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, then the head of the House energy committee. Barton cited the report in an October letter to The Washington Post when he wrote that Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann‘s work was “rooted in fundamental errors of methodology that had been cemented in place as ‘consensus’ by a closed network of friends.”

    The Wegman report criticized 1998 and 1999 reports led by Mann (Bradley was a co-author) that calculated global temperatures over the last dozen centuries. It also contained an analysis of Mann’s co-authors that appears partly cribbed from Wikipedia, Garner says….

    A 2006 report by the National Research Council (NRC), which examines scientific disputes under a congressional charter, largely validated Mann, Bradley and the other climate scientists, according to Texas A&M’s Gerald North, the panel’s head. The NRC report found the Wegman report’s criticism of the type of statistics used in 1998 and 1999 papers reasonable but beside the point, as many subsequent studies had reproduced their finding that the 20th century was likely the warmest one in centuries.

    Indeed, the Nature article on the report was headlined, “Academy affirms hockey-stick graph.”

    The Wegman report called for improved “sharing of research materials, data and results” from scientists. But in response to a request for materials related to the report, GMU said it “does not have access to the information.” Separately in that response, Wegman said his “email was downloaded to my notebook computer and was erased from the GMU mail server,” and he would not disclose any report communications or materials because the “work was done offsite,” aside from one meeting with Spencer….

  32. Climate study gets pulled after charges of plagiarism
    By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY

    Evidence of plagiarism and complaints about the peer-review process have led a statistics journal to retract a federally funded study that condemned scientific support for global warming.

    The study, which appeared in 2008 in the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, was headed by statistician Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. Its analysis was an outgrowth of a controversial congressional report that Wegman headed in 2006. The “Wegman Report” suggested climate scientists colluded in their studies and questioned whether global warming was real. The report has since become a touchstone among climate change naysayers.

    The journal publisher’s legal team “has decided to retract the study,” said CSDA journal editor Stanley Azen of the University of Southern California, following complaints of plagiarism. A November review by three plagiarism experts of the 2006 congressional report for USA TODAY also concluded that portions contained text from Wikipedia and textbooks. The journal study, co-authored by Wegman student Yasmin Said, detailed part of the congressional report’s analysis.


    Wegman scandal rocks cornerstone of climate denial
    By Joe Romm on May 16, 2011

    Climate science is a solid edifice built around the work of thousands of scientists, vast amounts of data, and countless peer-reviewed publications. As the National Academy of Sciences report put it, “Although the scientific process is always open to new ideas and results, the fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanation.”

    Climate denial is a house of cards, built around the sleight of hand of a few disinformers, deniers, and pseudo-scientists — who keep repeating the same falsehoods no matter how many times they have been debunked. One of the most important, yet flimsiest, cards holding up the house is the attack on the so-called Hockey Stick research — multiple, independent lines of data and analysis that demonstrate recent global warming is unprecedented in magnitude and speed and cause (see “Two more independent studies back the Hockey Stick and below). Indeed, as WAG notes, within a few decades, nobody is going to be talking about hockey sticks, they will be talking about right angles or hockey skates (see chart above).

    A cornerstone of the disinformer’s ultimately self-destructive attack on climate science is a 2006 report, commissioned by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), and led by George Mason University statistician Edward Wegman, who is now himself under investigation by GMU (see Experts find “shocking” plagiarism in 2006 climate report). You can find all the details you could want about the shoddy analysis of the report at Deep Climate “” including his “methodical demolishing of any hint of statistics” in the report, as John Mashey puts it in the comments.

  33. Case closed: “Climategate” was manufactured
    Discover Magazine

    It’s not often you can actually say “case closed”, but in this case it’s literally true: climatologist Michael Mann has been cleared of all wrongdoing by the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation.

    Did I say “has been cleared”? I meant has been cleared once again, since there have been several investigations into his research and Dr. Mann has been cleared of all charges every single time (like here and here). All of this stemmed from the “ClimateGate” nonsense of the past couple of years, where leaked emails were taken hugely out of context by the press and climate change deniers, and used to smear scientists. Dr. Mann was at the center of the whole manufactured controversy, being the biggest target of the people who want to deny the Earth is warming up.

    This latest, and hopefully last, investigation into Dr. Mann’s research (PDF) again shows he is not guilty of misconduct. A couple of the report conclusions are worth pointing out:

    We found no basis to conclude that the [Climategate] emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence.

    That’s clear enough, I think. They also said:

    There is no specific evidence that [Mann] falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions amounted to research misconduct.

    A big claim by the deniers is that researchers were using “tricks” to falsify conclusions about global warming, but the NSF report is pretty clear that’s not true. The most damning thing the investigators could muster was that there was “some concern” over the statistical methods used, but that’s not scandalous at all; there’s always some argument in science over methodology. The vague language of the report there indicates to me this isn’t a big deal, or else they would’ve been specific. The big point is that the data were not faked.

    What does this mean for global warming? A lot of these attacks can be traced back to the famous “hockey stick” diagram, showing how Earth’s temperatures have been increasing rapidly in recent times. This graph is what really clinches the idea of man-made global warming, and so has been the epicenter of the manufactroversy. The fact that Dr. Mann has been cleared again, and that his data are good, shows that this graph is even more solid — or at least is not as weak as so many would lead you to believe.

    And what does this mean about “ClimateGate”? That’s clear enough: all the outrage, all the claims of fraud and fakery, were just — haha — hot air.

    Not that this will stop or even slow down the denial machine. Politicians from the Virginia State Attorney General to members of the House of Representatives have been on what I would characterize as witch hunts. Dr. Mann has been vocal in his opposition, and I applaud him. Still, needless to say, the attacks will continue.

  34. Fox Clings To “Climategate” Fable
    August 30, 2011 12:48 pm ET by Shauna Theel
    Media Matters

    Fox News is still trying to feed the myth that the so-called “Climategate” controversy showed climate scientists deceitfully manipulating data — this time with Fox News’ empty suit of misinformation Eric Bolling. Fox’s apparent attempt to disavow the “anti-science” label couldn’t last more than a week.

    Yesterday, Bolling claimed on Fox News’ The Five that leaked emails from “Climategate” showed scientists “saying, hey, look, we’ve been cooking the books here and we’re basing a lot of our funding on these books.” Later on his Fox Business show, Bolling claimed that the scientists involved “admitted” that global warming is “hooey,” and “came out and said we don’t have the data, the data is flawed. We can’t prove global warming.”

    Yes, that’s what he thinks happened.

    But less than two weeks ago, Fox News host Clayton Morris acknowledged that Rick Perry was wrong to say that climate scientists were “found to be manipulating this data.” Morris said that Fox’s “brain room” investigated the matter and “Perry’s comments don’t seem to hold a lot of water.” This directly contradicts Bolling’s claim that the “Climategate” emails showed the evidence of global warming to be fake.

    Indeed every one of the several investigations into “Climategate” found that the scientists did not manipulate data to exaggerate global warming. Most recently, the National Science Foundation cleared Penn State’s Michael Mann of scientific misconduct.

    Fox News previously touted the National Science Foundation’s inquiry as the “final say” in the matter — but Fox refuses to let the truth have the final say when a lie is so handy.

  35. Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the “Climategate” Manufactured Controversy
    Union of Concerned Scientists

    The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

    Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

    Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

    A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.

    Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia”supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit.”

    A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General’s office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.

    The National Science Foundation’s Inspector General’s office concluded, “Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct…we are closing this investigation with no further action.”

  36. Art Pope’s millions fund climate change denial
    Sue Sturgis

    There’s broad agreement among scientists nowadays that global warming is real and caused in large part by human activities like burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests.

    For example, a survey [PDF] by university researchers published last year in Eos, the journal of the American Geophysical Union, found that 90 percent of earth scientists agree that mean global temperatures have generally risen since the 1800s, and 82 percent think human activity contributes significantly. As respondents’ level of specialization in climate science increased, so did their confidence in human-caused global warming, with climatologists who actively work on climate change agreeing most strongly. That broad agreement is why prestigious scientific organizations including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, and the National Academy of Sciences all refer to a climate science “consensus.”

    But earlier this month, Rasmussen Reports released a poll that asked likely U.S. voters their thoughts on various energy issues including global warming. While the majority of voters — 59 percent — think climate change is a serious issue, the number has dropped since last year. At the same time, the survey found that only 39 percent of voters think human activity is the main contributor to the earth’s warming.

    So why all the confusion among the public? A big reason is a long-lived and generously funded public relations campaign by corporations, business leaders, and others — many with a financial interest in fossil-fuel industries — to make it seem like there’s less of a consensus about human-caused climate change than there really is.

    Two key players in this well-funded campaign have been David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers behind Koch Industries, a Kansas-based oil conglomerate and the second-largest privately held company in the United States. The Kochs have landed in the public spotlight lately thanks to a New Yorker profile that detailed their efforts to sow doubt about global warming as well as reports by The New York Times and Think Progress about the brothers’ efforts to coordinate conservative political initiatives, including an assault on what they call “climate change alarmism.”

    But the Kochs aren’t the only ones attacking prevailing climate science. An investigation by Facing South finds that they have a valuable ally in North Carolina: the lesser-known but influential conservative benefactor Art Pope.

    Pope has close ties to the Kochs as one of four national directors of the Koch-founded political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity; he is also the second-largest institutional funder of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

    In addition, Pope is a director and board chair of a family foundation that has steered millions to conservative thinks tanks both in North Carolina and nationwide, which have worked closely with the Koch network to manufacture doubt about global warming.

    In North Carolina, the climate skeptics that benefit from Pope’s fortune haven’t gained much traction in the state legislature. But that could change if Pope’s strategy pays off this election year: He has begun funneling money to ostensibly nonpartisan nonprofits that use it to run attack ads, and among the targeted politicians are two long-time legislative leaders who’ve played a key role in addressing climate change in the state.

    Keeping up with the Kochs

    For over a decade, the Koch brothers have spent a considerable chunk of their $21.5 billion fortunes financing doubt about climate science.

    A report released earlier this year by Greenpeace documented how the Kochs have contributed more than $48.5 million from 1997 to 2008 toward funding what the environmental group refers to as the “climate denial machine” — a network of several dozen think tanks dedicated to sowing doubt about global warming. The Kochs’ money has flowed largely through the brothers’ charitable family foundations: the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the David H. Koch Foundation, and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation.

    Facing South’s analysis of tax return data finds that Art Pope’s family foundation has also made very generous contributions to this same network of climate denial groups over that same period — more than $24.1 million in all.

    The generosity of the Pope Foundation is especially remarkable when you consider that his fortune is presumably nowhere near as large as the Kochs’. While the Koch brothers landed in fifth place on Forbes’ list of the 400 richest Americans released last month, Pope — who made his millions after inheriting his father’s discount retail chain — did not make the list at all.

    The largest chunk of money that Pope contributed to the climate denial network went to the John Locke Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit think tank based in Raleigh, N.C. that was created in 1990 to promote the idea of limited government. Not only does Pope provide 80 percent of the organization’s funding — a striking $16.9 million from 1997 to 2008 alone — he also sits on its board of directors, which gives him considerable power in managing the organization’s operations and policies.

  37. George Mason: Climate Denial U.?
    Daily Kos
    April 16, 2010

    Northern Virginians have lots of reasons to take pride in George Mason University, as a rapidly growing academic community, named the #1 national university to watch in the 2009 rankings of US News & World Report, with Nobel Prize winning faculty, and an occasionally great basketball team.

    Unfortunately, GMU is also known as a magnet for right wing money which takes millions in corporate cash to run a network of centers to gin up and legitimate the latest ultraconservative talking points.

    Now let me be clear: I strongly favor an academic environment that is open to debate and opinions from all across the political spectrum. But there is a difference between principled, reason-based academic stands and corporate-funded attempts to skew debate and provide a fig leaf to cover naked profit-based self-interest. And this brings me to the unfortunate role that my local university is playing in the political war over climate change.

    A lot of NOVA residents may not realize that GMU gives funding, support
    and – most importantly – academic legitimacy to some of the best known and most persistent deniers of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change – notably Patrick Michaels and S. Fred Singer. In doing so, GMU perpetuates the myth that there is widespread academic disagreement about the facts and causes of climate change when in fact there is not.

    Notable among the funders to GMU are the notorious Koch brothers, about which Greenpeace recently released a damning report, “Koch Industries Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine.” Koch, the second-largest privately-held company in the US, supports its interests in the oil industry by funding dozens of think-tanks, websites, and PACs to create an echo-chamber that endlessly repeats the latest bogus climate denial claims to convince the media, politicians, and citizens that climate change is just a hoax concocted by corrupt scientists, enviros and the nefarious Al Gore.

    Koch and other right-wing donors give their money to support a web of GMU-affiliated organizations with names like the Mercatus Center, Institute for Humane Studies, and the Science and Environmental Policy Project. Through these centers, GMU and their donors support such climate denial luminaries as Professor Patrick Michaels.

  38. Elaine:

    you can read the emails yourself. the emails show, I have read some of them, a definite attempt to look at things in a certain way.

    Climate change is pushed by politics and money, on both sides, so why should we believe the Daily Kos or for that matter George Mason University?

    In my opinion the sun is what causes climate change to any great extent. We may contribute a little bit to warming or cooling but I think the Polar Bears are safe for a few billion years. But then the Woolly Mammoths werent and neither were the Giant Sloths or Saber-tooth Cats. Extinction is part of life on earth. Get used to it, we arent going to last as a species either unless we figure out space travel in a few billion years.

    Man cannot control everything on earth nor should he try. Control what you can efficaciously and leave the rest alone. How do you know you wont cause bigger problems by trying to limit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

  39. Elaine:

    do you deny that communist dupes and wealthy socialists are funding a “climate scare machine”?

    Come on, each side has an agenda. I have seen enough to know that there is evidence of warming but what causes the warming is debatable. Personally I think the warming is caused by the sun going into some sort of solar cycle.

  40. Bron,

    A simple yes or no answer would have been sufficient.

    I guess scientists do have an agenda–an agenda to try to provide people with the best science, research, and knowledge available. What is the agenda of the Kochs and Exxon and the other people and organizations who are funding the climate denial machine?

  41. Elaine:

    would that be the Kochtopuss, Koch Monster or the Monster Koch?

    Or Sorospuss, Soros Monster, Son of Soros, Hydrasoros, Sorosclops.

    Kochtopuss vs Sorosclops
    Sorospuss vs Monster Koch
    Koch Monster vs Hydrasoros

  42. That would be “Koch” as in Charles and David “Koch” and Koch Industries.

    Are you suggesting that climate scientists who believe in climate change are all either socialists, communists, or puppets of George Soros?

  43. Elaine:

    no more than you are suggesting all climate scientists who believe in climate change due to non-anthropogenic causes are puppets of the Koch brothers.

  44. From the above document, the money quote:

    …there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond….

  45. “In the last 50 years atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several thousand years. Global annual-mean surface temperatures are rising at a rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and probably in the last 1000) years.”

    I wonder why they only go back several thousand years? Maybe if they go back farther it wont substantiate their conclusion?

  46. Bron, they have to go back thousands of years to see if what is happening is cyclical weather or climate change unprecedented in the history of the planet.

  47. Bron: “In my opinion the sun is what causes climate change to any great extent. We may contribute a little bit to warming or cooling but I think the Polar Bears are safe for a few billion years. But then the Woolly Mammoths weren’t and neither were the Giant Sloths or Saber-tooth Cats. Extinction is part of life on earth. Get used to it, we aren’t going to last as a species either unless we figure out space travel in a few billion years.”

    That statement is breathtaking in it’s optimism and lack of scholarship. The mega-fauna of New Zealand and Madagascar including the Giant Sloth and Moa were hunted to extinction, the sun didn’t kill them, hunters did and did so in a very short period of time.

    The Mammoths of Europe and the America’s demise is more problematic but an apt illustration to refute your approach to the issue (do nothing). The warming climate (prior to a re-cooling) did pressure the large animals but hunting practices were probably the death knell. In Europe hunting was less sophisticated than than the America’s but wasteful. Fire was used to drive animals over cliffs, often entire herds. The fossil record has turned up several sites of hundreds of animals killed this way.

    In the Americas Paleoamericans, newly landed with more sophisticated technology (Clovis points and detachable points), ended up with as much as 30%-40% of their diet being protein. Climate warming was a problem but a burgeoning population of skilled hunters finished the job. Large populations of animals up against a sophisticated enemy lose, think buffalo here, or Tuna.

    To say that Polar Bears or any large animal on earth is safe for a few billion years is an exaggeration that borders on madness. At the rate large animals in the sea are being fished, herds are being encroached and habitat is being destroyed the world over a century is more reasonable. Your great, great, great, great grand children are going to be eating Soylent Yellow, blue and Green.

    As for getting off this rock- ain’t gonna’ happen or not in any way that allows the Earth to be disposable. Not unless faster-than-light speed travel happens. Even at light speed there’s nowhere to go close enough that looks good for colonizing. The fact that people can even think it’s OK, in the short term, to damage this perfect environment- perfect for life as we know and live it- and bet on some magic technology in the future is just nuts. We can’t do anything about what nature and the universe throws our way, no use even worrying about that; it’s always been a crap shoot. Not playing our own cards conservatively though is foolhardy.

  48. Even though the evidence is overwhelming

    Nations Heading to Durban Climate Talks Remain Deeply Divided

    U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres lauded a climate change meeting in Panama as “good progress” this weekend, even as environmental activists warned that the world’s only structure for curbing greenhouse gas emissions appears about to crumble.

  49. Notice from the Independent article.

    Burning issue: Hansen’s evidence that the world is hotting up

    Texas, summer 2011

    The US state this year has had its driest summer since record-keeping began in 1895, with 75 per cent of the state classified as “exceptional drought”, the worst level. Shortages of grass, hay and water have forced ranchers to thin their herds – where this cow died, in the San Angelo area, there has been less than three inches of rain.

    Moscow, August 2010

    Russia experienced its hottest-ever summer last year – for weeks, a large portion of European Russia was more than 7 °C (12.6 °F) warmer than normal, and a new national record was set of 44 °C (111 °F). Raging forest fires filled Moscow with smoke, forcing the cancellation of air services and obliging people to don face masks.

    Northern Europe, 2003

    Shrivelled French grapes at the end of Europe’s hottest summer on record, in 2003. The heatwave led to health crises in several countries and more than 40,000 people are thought to have died. Britain experienced its first (and so far only) 100+ F air temperature – 101.3°F (38.5°C) recorded at Brogdale, Kent, on 10 August.
    A few things here, first Moscow 2010,

    Natural Variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave That Killed Thousands

    Hansen obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about because a peer reviewed study that has been accepted states it was a natural event.

    Second, Texas, this aint the first time it’s happened and it won’t be the last.

    Also please take note that Hansen is area specific and weather is climate. I’ve been chastised by many here for pointing out that weather over a daily occurrence then monthly then yearly equates to climate.

  50. Ah yes, when in doubt, quote those great bastions of original scientific research, the New York Times and the Guardian. Hey guys, you forgot that other great professional journal, the Reader’s Digest.

  51. Additionally to the Hansen article he claims that the climate sceptic lobby employed communications professionals, whereas “scientists are just barely competent at communicating with the public and don’t have the wherewithal to do it.”

    Bullshit they are the ones who get all the grant money to further their cause. They are the ones who get to go on T.V. and sound the alarm bells even though those bells are false alarms.

  52. O.S. don’t confuse source with content we already had this discussion with prison planet or some other link you posted a few months ago.

  53. Inadvertent Weather Modification in Urban Areas: Lessons for Global Climate Change.
    Changnon, Stanley A.
    Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 73, Issue 5, pp.619-752

    Large metropolitan areas in North America, home to 65% of the nation’s population, have created major changes in their climates over the past 150 years. The rate and amount of the urban climate change approximate those being predicted globally using climate models. Knowledge of urban weather and climate modification holds lessons for the global climate change issue. First, adjustments to urban climate changes can provide guidance for adjusting to global change. A second lesson relates to the difficulty but underscores the necessity of providing scientifically credible proof of change within the noise of natural climatic variability. The evolution of understanding about how urban conditions influence weather reveals several unexpected outcomes, particularly relating to precipitation changes. These suggest that similar future surprises can be expected in a changed global climate, a third lesson. In-depth studies of how urban climate changes affected the hydrologic cycle, the regional economy, and human activities were difficult because of data problems, lack of impact methodology, and necessity for multi disciplinary investigations. Similar impact studies for global climate change will require diverse scientific talents and funding commitments adequate to measure the complexity of impacts and human adjustments. Understanding the processes whereby urban areas and other human activities have altered the atmosphere and changed clouds and precipitation regionally appears highly relevant to the global climate-change issue. Scientific and governmental policy development needs to recognize an old axiom that became evident in the studies of inadvertent urban and regional climate change and their behavioral implications: Think globally but act locally. Global climate change is an international issue, and the atmosphere must be treated globally. But the impacts and the will to act and adjust will occur regionally.

  54. Bdaman:

    so all weather is local? And a change year to year is only an indication of weather patterns in a local area?

    Funny how here in Virginia we had gallons of water in September but a few years ago my well went dry and I had to pony up 10 grand to have city water brought in, now my well is charged and I am out $10 k.

    Wasnt the Dust Bowel of the 30’s a result of the same thing going on in Texas this year?

  55. Bdaman,

    And we had a few days of temperatures in the eighties here in Massachusetts in October this year. That’s isn’t typical. So what? Weather and climate don’t mean exactly the same thing.

    Climate change means a change in climate–not variations in weather here and there from time to time.

  56. Lets not forget David Viner Senior Climate Scientist when he said,

    “the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

    The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain’s biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. “It was a bit of a first,” a spokesperson said.

    as a matter of fact look how many scientist back his claim. It’s no wonder people don’t believe their drivel.

    First it’s global warming = No Snow. Now it’s global warming = lots of snow.

  57. Bdaman,

    And we had a few days of temperatures in the eighties here in Massachusetts in October this year. That’s isn’t typical. So what? Weather and climate don’t mean exactly the same thing.

    Climate change means a change in climate–not variations in weather here and there from time to time.

    Elaine tell that to James Hansen. He picked out three events, weather related and equated it to climate change.

  58. So much snow remains, WSDOT can’t plow it all

    “We couldn’t even get to this point until Tuesday,” says Debra Paul with the Forest Service. “It’s very unusual.”

    More than 50 feet of snow fell in the area and has been slow to melt because of cooler than average temperatures.

    The Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) made the decision not to plow the highway from Heather Meadows to popular Artist Point. It says the snow would take too long to clear and would tie up maintenance crews for the next two months when they could be working on other state priorities like fixing potholes, signs and guardrail.

    The last time the WSDOT decided not to clear to Artist Point was in 1999, the year a world record was set for annual snowfall.

  59. Otteray Scribe:

    well yes, asphalt and concrete jungles are hotter than forests and more water run-off occurs in cities than in jungles.

    Since rain clouds may come from hundreds of miles away, I fail to see how excess run-off would do much. Maybe the increased heat coming off of a city may effect weather somewhat and the tall buildings break up some wind generated systems like Tornados but beyond that I think cities have minimal impact on weather systems.

  60. Bron,

    “Wasnt the Dust Bowel of the 30′s a result of the same thing going on in Texas this year?”

    What does that prove?

    A sustained period of drought and poor agricultural practices caused the Dust Bowl.

  61. Sea Level the lowest in a decade

    23 September 2011
    ESA’s Envisat observation satellite yesterday completed its 50 000th circuit of Earth – travelling 2.25 billion km since its launch nearly a decade ago.

    Envisat orbits our planet every 100 minutes, speeding along at more than seven kilometres per second.

    During this milestone spin around the world on 22 September, the satellite passed from the Arctic to the Antarctic, catching glimpses of northern Greenland and New Zealand

  62. And although the number of name tropical systems in the Atlantic are high this year only three made it to hurricane status and Irene was questionable.

    Al Gore wants you to believe that Katrina is the new norm.

  63. Sorry guys I know I’m wasting my time.

    Yall have at it. Let me know when you take your blinders off. I got more important things to do other than trying to convince you you’ve been hoodwinked.

  64. Bdaman,

    “Let me know when you take your blinders off. I got more important things to do other than trying to convince you you’ve been hoodwinked.”

    Just because you drink the climate change denial Kool-aid, doesn’t mean we should all swallow it. Have a nice vacation from this discussion.


    In the Land of Denial
    Published: September 6, 2011

    The Republican presidential contenders regard global warming as a hoax or, at best, underplay its importance. The most vocal denier is Rick Perry, the Texas governor and longtime friend of the oil industry, who insists that climate change is an unproven theory created by “a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.”

    Never mind that nearly all the world’s scientists regard global warming as a serious threat to the planet, with human activities like the burning of fossil fuels a major cause. Never mind that multiple investigations have found no evidence of scientific manipulation. Never mind that America needs a national policy. Mr. Perry has a big soapbox, and what he says, however fallacious, reaches a bigger audience than any scientist can command.

    With one exception — make that one-and-one-half — the rest of the Republican presidential field also rejects the scientific consensus. The exception is Jon Huntsman Jr., a former ambassador to China and former governor of Utah, who recently wrote on Twitter: “I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.” The one-half exception is Mitt Romney, who accepted the science when he was governor of Massachusetts and argued for reducing emissions. Lately, he’s retreated into mush: “Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that, but I think that it is.” As for the human contribution: “It could be a little. It could be a lot.”

    The others flatly repudiate the science. Ron Paul of Texas calls global warming “the greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years.” Michele Bachmann of Minnesota once said that carbon dioxide was nothing to fear because it is a “natural byproduct of nature” and has complained of “manufactured science.” Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, has called climate change “a beautifully concocted scheme” that is “just an excuse for more government control of your life.”

    Newt Gingrich’s full record on climate change has been a series of epic flip-flops. In 2008, he appeared on television with Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker, to say that “our country must take action to address climate change.” He now says the appearance was a mistake.

    None of the candidates endorse a mandatory limit on emissions or, for that matter, a truly robust clean energy program. This includes Mr. Huntsman. In 2007, as Utah governor, he joined with Arnold Schwarzenegger, then the governor of California, in creating the Western Climate Initiative, a market-based cap-and-trade program aimed at reducing emissions in Western states. Cap-and-trade has since acquired a toxic political reputation, especially among Republicans, and Mr. Huntsman has backed away.

    The economic downturn has made addressing climate change less urgent for voters. But the issue is not going away. The nation badly needs a candidate with a coherent, disciplined national strategy. So far, there is no Republican who fits that description.

  66. Big Picture Science: climate change denial on Fox News
    Discover Magazine

    Every month or so I do a skeptical segment with astronomer Seth Shostak called “Brains on Vacation” for the SETI radio show/podcast “Big Picture Science” (what used to be called “Are We Alone?”). This month’s episode, Plotting Along, is about conspiracy theories and is now online. You can listen to it there, or download the file directly.

    This time, I talked about the climate change denier Joe Bastardi’s bizarre take on global warming that recently aired on Fox News — you can read all about what he said on sites like Scientific American and Media Matters. Basically, Bastardi denies humans have anything to do with climate change, and has a history of saying things that, um, turn out not to be entirely accurate when it comes to basic science.

    In this case, Bastardi tried to invoke the First Law of Thermodynamics to show humans don’t cause global warming, a truly weird thing to do since the First Law actually supports the idea that pumping CO2 into the air makes it heat up. Without carbon dioxide, the energy from the Sun would hit the Earth, with some being absorbed and some radiating away. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, just balanced. However, carbon dioxide traps some of that heat, warming us up*. It’s not that new energy is being created someplace, it’s just that more of the Sun’s heat stays trapped here on Earth instead of being radiated away. That energy cannot just go away or be destroyed, so we warm up.

    The First Law is safe. Phew!

    Not content with just physics, Bastardi then moved on to chemistry: this time, Le Chatelier’s Principle. That one (which is not actually a law but more like a rule of thumb) says that a system out of equilibrium tries to get back to equilibrium. For a totally random example, say you have a planet with CO2 in its air, trapping some heat and letting some leak away. If you add more CO2, more heat will be trapped and the planet will warm up, eventually re-establishing equilibrium (different than the previous balance, but still balanced).

    Bastardi’s claim about this is truly weird; he claims Le Chatelier’s Principle is why Earth’s temperature has leveled off recently. That’s wrong because of the reason I just stated above, but also because of the small fact that our temperature hasn’t leveled off. This is a relatively new denier claim that’s been making the rounds, and it’s flatly (haha) wrong. The Earth’s temperature has been increasing steadily for quite some time, including the past few decades (2010 tied the year 2005 as the hottest year on record so far; note that both years are in the period where Bastardi claims the temperatures have leveled off).

  67. LATimes
    Scientist proves conservatism and belief in climate change aren’t incompatible
    MIT professor Kerry Emanuel is among a rare breed of conservative scientists who are sounding the alarm for climate change and criticizing Republicans’ ‘agenda of denial’ and ‘anti-science stance.’
    January 05, 2011
    By Neela Banerjee, Washington Bureau

    Reporting from Cambridge, Mass. — According to the conventional wisdom that liberals accept climate change and conservatives don’t, Kerry Emanuel is an oxymoron.

    Emanuel sees himself as a conservative. He believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He backs a strong military. He almost always votes Republican and admires Ronald Reagan.

    Emanuel is also a highly regarded professor of atmospheric science at MIT. And based on his work on hurricanes and the research of his peers, Emanuel has concluded that the scientific data show a powerful link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

    “There was never a light-bulb moment but a gradual realization based on the evidence,” Emanuel said. “I became convinced by the basic physics and by the better and better observation of the climate that it was changing and it was a risk that had to be considered.”

    As a politically conservative climatologist who accepts the broad scientific consensus on global warming, Emanuel occupies a position shared by only a few scientists.

    In much the same role that marriage and abortion played in previous election cycles, denial of climate change has now become a litmus test for the right.

    The vast majority of Republicans elected to Congress during the midterm election doubt climate science, and senior congressional conservatives — Republican and Democrat — have vowed to fight Obama administration efforts to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.

    That’s why scientists such as Emanuel rattle the political pigeonholes. Some are speaking out, using their expertise and conservative credentials to challenge what many researchers consider widespread distortions about climate change.

    Texas Tech atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe is an evangelical Christian who travels widely talking to conservative audiences and wrote a book with her husband, a pastor and former climate change denier, explaining climate change to skeptics.

    A physicist by training, John Cook is an evangelical Christian who runs the website, which seeks to debunk climate change deniers’ arguments. Barry Bickmore is a Mormon, a professor of geochemistry at Brigham Young University and the blogger behind Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah, where he recently rebuked Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) for his climate views and posted editorials mentioning his Republican affiliation.

    Emanuel waded into the fray early last year. He wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal criticizing a friend and colleague for dismissing the evidence of climate change and clinging “to the agenda of denial.” Then Emanuel added his name to the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, a website run by scientists to provide accurate information from top researchers in climate-related fields.

    “I’ve always rebelled against the thinking that ideology can trump fact,” said Emanuel, 55. “The people who call themselves conservative these days aren’t conservative by my definition. I think they’re quite radical.”

  68. I am denying the point humans play a large role in the change.

    Volcanoes can change the weather for a short period too when they erupt, but they arent being blamed and they spew a good deal of junk every year.

    Swamps emit methane, so does the sea. How much CO2 is put into the atmosphere by algae and other plants? What about forest fires? Trees sequester a great deal of CO2 which is released during a natural forest fire.

    I am sure there are hundreds of other points that could be made that I dont know about because I am not a weather guy.

    You do remember Galileo was turning the “settled” science on its head. There are too many scientists jumping on this band wagon for me to believe it is true. Anthropogenic Global Warming has always been a political phenomenon of the Malthusian variety or worse.

  69. The Truth, Still Inconvenient
    Published: April 3, 2011

    So the joke begins like this: An economist, a lawyer and a professor of marketing walk into a room. What’s the punch line? They were three of the five “expert witnesses” Republicans called for last week’s Congressional hearing on climate science.

    But the joke actually ended up being on the Republicans, when one of the two actual scientists they invited to testify went off script.

    Prof. Richard Muller of Berkeley, a physicist who has gotten into the climate skeptic game, has been leading the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, an effort partially financed by none other than the Koch foundation. And climate deniers — who claim that researchers at NASA and other groups analyzing climate trends have massaged and distorted the data — had been hoping that the Berkeley project would conclude that global warming is a myth.

    Instead, however, Professor Muller reported that his group’s preliminary results find a global warming trend “very similar to that reported by the prior groups.”

    The deniers’ response was both predictable and revealing; more on that shortly. But first, let’s talk a bit more about that list of witnesses, which raised the same question I and others have had about a number of committee hearings held since the G.O.P. retook control of the House — namely, where do they find these people?

    My favorite, still, was Ron Paul’s first hearing on monetary policy, in which the lead witness was someone best known for writing a book denouncing Abraham Lincoln as a “horrific tyrant” — and for advocating a new secessionist movement as the appropriate response to the “new American fascialistic state.”

    The ringers (i.e., nonscientists) at last week’s hearing weren’t of quite the same caliber, but their prepared testimony still had some memorable moments. One was the lawyer’s declaration that the E.P.A. can’t declare that greenhouse gas emissions are a health threat, because these emissions have been rising for a century, but public health has improved over the same period. I am not making this up.

    Oh, and the marketing professor, in providing a list of past cases of “analogies to the alarm over dangerous manmade global warming” — presumably intended to show why we should ignore the worriers — included problems such as acid rain and the ozone hole that have been contained precisely thanks to environmental regulation.

    But back to Professor Muller. His climate-skeptic credentials are pretty strong: he has denounced both Al Gore and my colleague Tom Friedman as “exaggerators,” and he has participated in a number of attacks on climate research, including the witch hunt over innocuous e-mails from British climate researchers. Not surprisingly, then, climate deniers had high hopes that his new project would support their case.

    You can guess what happened when those hopes were dashed.

    Just a few weeks ago Anthony Watts, who runs a prominent climate denialist Web site, praised the Berkeley project and piously declared himself “prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” But never mind: once he knew that Professor Muller was going to present those preliminary results, Mr. Watts dismissed the hearing as “post normal science political theater.” And one of the regular contributors on his site dismissed Professor Muller as “a man driven by a very serious agenda.”

    Of course, it’s actually the climate deniers who have the agenda, and nobody who’s been following this discussion believed for a moment that they would accept a result confirming global warming. But it’s worth stepping back for a moment and thinking not just about the science here, but about the morality.

  70. GOP, Koch Brothers Climate Denier Dr. Richard Muller Changes Opinion
    April 13, 2011
    By Michael Muracco

    Today, there was a climate science hearing in the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Of the six “expert” witnesses, only three were scientists. The others were an economist, a lawyer, and a professor of marketing.

    One of the scientists was Richard Muller from University of California, Berkeley. Muller has been working on an independent project to better estimate the planet’s surface temperatures over time. Because he is willing to say publicly that he has some doubts about the accuracy of the temperature stations that most climate models are based on, he has been embraced by the science denying crowd. A Koch brothers charity, for example, has donated nearly 25 percent of the financial support provided to Muller’s project.

  71. Scientific American editors slam science deniers Patrick Michaels and George Gilder for misusing their unscientific online poll
    By Joe Romm on Nov 18, 2010

    SciAm “horrified” by “the co-opting of the poll” by users of “the well-known climate denier site, Watts Up With That”

    Memo to media, science museums, homo ‘sapiens’: Enough with the online polls!

    Just how weak is the case of the anti-science disinformers? In his written testimony for the recent House hearing on climate science, leading science denier Patrick Michaels of the pro-pollution Cato Institute, devoted two pages to the most unscientific ‘evidence’ possible — an online poll.
    Michaels, who recently said Big Oil funds some 40% of his work, based a key part of his testimony on the ‘results’ of an online poll by Scientific American that was gamed by the deniers themselves, as SciAm has documented.

  72. Climate contrarian Pat Michaels refused to disclose funding in Vermont court case
    Posted on September 19, 2007 by Rick Piltz

    Patrick J. Michaels, one of the global warming skeptics most often interviewed by news media, withdrew as an expert witness in a high-profile Vermont court case rather than disclose his funding sources, court documents show. Moreover, Michaels told the court in July 2007, some funders gave him money on the condition that their identities remain secret ­—and he is largely dependent for his livelihood on the money they give him.

  73. 26 May 09
    The Cato Institute and Patrick Michaels – It’s a Small World After All

    It’s not often the public gets to follow the money trail, so it was a treat this week when PR Watch revealed the Cato Institute has been bankrolling a consulting company owned by notorious climate denier Patrick Michaels to the tune of $242,900 since April 2006.

    Michaels is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and according to tax documents uncovered by PR Watch for 2006 and 2007, Cato ponyed up almost a quarter million to Michaels’ firm New Hope Environmental Services for “environmental policy” services.

    Small world eh?

    Both Cato and Michaels have a long and reprehensible history of questioning the link between carbon emissions and climate change. Last month, Cato bankrolled full-page ads in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Times, and the Los Angeles Times, opining that climate change was “grossly overstated”.

    Their statement was naturally targeted at decision makers in advance of the cap and trade legislation moving through Congress. It was signed by the usual suspects, including Patrick Michaels, who has made a lucrative career of challenging climate science on behalf of a variety of vested interests.

    Real scientists were of course disgusted by this tactic, as well as the baseless claims being spread around the nation. A scientific evisceration of the Cato letter is available here.

    For a more in-depth journey into the bowels of the carbon-funded campaign to confuse the public on climate change, you may want to peruse a remarkable affidavit filed by Patrick Michaels in 2006. He was weaseling out of testifying as an expert witness in court after learning he might be forced to unmask his funding sources.

    It seems Michaels was hired by a number of auto companies and lobby groups, including General Motors and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, in a legal bid aimed at preventing the government of Vermont from regulating greenhouse gases.

    Greenpeace intervened in the case seeking to have Michaels’ consulting company reveal its shadowy clients. Dr. Michaels quickly bid a hasty and undignified retreat. Rather than risk exposing who was bankrolling him as a professional climate expert he filed this remarkable document in court outlining the reasons why this would endanger his livelihood.

    How badly did Michaels want to keep his backers secret? He states himself that dropping the trial “resulted in short-term loss of income to me.” How much, he did not say. However other parts of his affidavit show how lucrative it can be to hang a shingle a professional climate skeptic.

  74. The Climate Killers
    Meet the 17 polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming
    Rolling Stone
    Posted Jan 06, 2010

    The Tea Partiers
    Charles and David Koch
    CEO and Executive Vice President, Koch Industries

    The multibillionaire brothers not only run the nation’s largest private energy company, they rival Exxon in funding the front groups that spread disinformation about the dangers of climate change. Over the years, the Kochs and their foundations have lavished millions on climate deniers at the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute, which Charles founded in 1977. Cato, in turn, supports the work of Patrick Michaels, a leading climate denier who attempts to discredit the international scientific consensus on global warming while accepting money from coal companies. As author Thomas Frank observes in What’s the Matter With Kansas?, “Koch money subsidizes the mass production of bad ideas.”

    One major recipient of Koch cash is Americans for Prosperity, where David chairs the foundation’s board. In addition to fomenting last summer’s town-hall brawls over health care reform, AFP sponsored a “Hot Air Tour” on climate change, deploying a manned balloon at 75 events for the purpose of “Exposing the Ballooning Costs of Global Warming Hysteria.” At the events, the group’s president, Tim Phillips, grossly exaggerated the costs of climate legislation, calling it a trillion-dollar tax on American families.

    Last October, at an AFP summit attended by David Koch, the assembled Tea Partiers screened a climate-denial film that accused advocates like Al Gore of wanting to take civilization “back to the Dark Ages and the Black Plague.” Such events, Koch proclaimed, “bring to reality the vision” of “fighting for the economic freedoms that made our nation the most prosperous society in history.” Last year, seeking to defend its own prosperity against a carbon-capped future, Koch Industries spent more than $8.5 million on lobbying.

  75. From PolluterWatch
    Polluter #74
    Koch Industries

    The Political Economy Research Institute ranks Koch Industries as the tenth worst air polluter in the U.S. in their Toxic Release Inventory. CARMA reports that Koch releases just under 5 million tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide annually.

    Through Koch Industries and their family foundations, the Koch brothers are premier financiers to organizations that deny, skepticize or belittle the significance of global warming. Compared to ExxonMobil, which spent $10.2 million on skeptic groups from 2005-2008, Koch Industries dwarfed their contribution with a $31.6 million effort. More than $5.6 million went to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation (founded and chaired by David Koch), over $2.2 million to the Heritage Foundation and over $1.2 million the Cato Institute (co-founded by Charles Koch, chaired by David Koch). The Koch family foundations have contributed over $55 million since 1997, more than half of which was spent after 2005.
    Source: Greenpeace Report

    Koch worked behind the scenes during the 2010 “Rally for Jobs” astroturf events, coordinated by the American Petroleum Institute in order to create political pressure against clean energy and climate legislation in the interest of the oil and gas industry. Groups such as Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which are both heavily funded by the Koch brothers and founded by David Koch, were partner organizations in promoting the rallies.

    Koch Industries spent $1 million to promote California Proposition 23, intended to undermine the states clean energy and climate law, through subsidiary company Flint Hills Resources. Koch also pushed Prop 23 through one of their beneficiary front groups, the Pacific Research Institute, which published and promoted reports that made favorable economic arguments for Prop 23 using flawed methodologies.

    Political Economy Research Institute (UMASS Amherst)
    Toxic 100 Air Polluters
    March 2010

  76. Elaine:

    I dont think people are denying global warming, what we are denying is man has any significant contribution to what is occurring naturally.

    The earth cycles in regard to temperature, it has been going on for millions of years. And so what if the temperature of the earth rises a little bit? It makes it better for human beings.

    Krugman hasnt said anything of any significance, but then when does he ever?

  77. Bron, yea, some people are denying global warning:

    “Texas agency censors climate change references in key scientific report

    The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) doesn’t want to say who’s responsible for deleting all mentions of climate change from part of a forthcoming scientific report, and that’s got at least one scientist hopping mad.

    Dr. John B. Anderson (pictured, left), an oceanographer at Rice University, told Raw Story that his report on the Galveston Bay estuary, and the effects of rising sea levels on its fragile ecosystem, was censored for purely “political” reasons.

    “This is a clear-cut case of censorship,” he said in an exclusive interview. “It’s not scientific editing. It was strictly deletion of virtually any information that related to global change.”

    But more pressing for today, Anderson’s report cites recent, dramatic changes in the sea level that stand in stark contrast with historical norms. If these changes are not acknowledged and action is not taken to mitigate the consequences, he said, the ecosystems along the Texas gulf coast could suffer severely in the coming years. …”

  78. Dr. John B. Anderson (pictured, left), an oceanographer at Rice University, told Raw Story that his report on the Galveston Bay estuary, and the effects of rising sea levels on its fragile ecosystem, was censored for purely “political” reasons.

    Global Sea Level Drops 6 mm in 2010

    I’ll let you ponder there explanation. Your homework is to figure out why part of it, lets say 75 % is wrong. Now get to work.

  79. Bdaman:

    what are you saying? that melting ice sheets will cool the ocean waters? Or that the rise in Ocean level is only measured since 1994 [maybe the launch of the satellite?] and therefore not a large enough sampling to really tell us anything at all? Or possibly that a good deal of water infiltrates the soil and recharges aquifers? Or that cycles of Nino and Nina have been going on for millions of years? Or maybe that Texas study doesnt take into account the dynamic nature of a coastline with man or without man’s influence?

    What are you saying?

  80. Perry Officials Censored Climate Change Report
    The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality doesn’t want you to know that climate change is causing sea level rise in Galveston Bay.
    —By Kate Sheppard
    Mother Jones, 10/12/2011

    Rick Perry takes Texas pride in being a climate change denier—and his administration acts accordingly.

    Top environmental officials under Perry have gutted a recent report on sea level rise in Galveston Bay, removing all mentions of climate change. For the past decade, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), which is run by Perry political appointees, including famed global warming denier Bryan Shaw, has contracted with the Houston Advanced Research Center to produce regular reports on the state of the Bay. But when HARC submitted its most recent State of the Bay publication to the commission earlier this year, officials decided they couldn’t accept a report that said climate change is caused by human activity and is causing the sea level to rise. Top officials at the commission proceeded to edit the paper to censor its references to human-induced climate change or future projections on how much the bay will rise.

    John Anderson, the oceanographer at Rice University who wrote the chapter, provided Mother Jones with a copy of the edited document, complete with tracked changes from top TCEQ officials. You can see the cuts—which include how much sea level rise has increased over the years, as well as the statement that this rise “is one of the main impacts of global climate change”—here and embedded at the end of this story. As the document shows, most of the tracked changes came from Katherine Nelson, the assistant director in the water quality planning division. Her boss, Kelly Holligan, is listed as a reviewer on the document as well.

    Holligan and Nelson are top managers at Perry’s commission; lower-ranking staff at the agency had already approved the document, according to the publication’s editor. The changes came only after the two women reviewed the issue. TCEQ’s commissioners, who are direct political appointees of the governor, select the top managers at TCEQ. Although the director and assistant director jobs aren’t technically political appointments, those hires are usually vetted by the governor’s office.

    Anderson, whose complaints were first reported by the Houston Chronicle on Monday, says that the cuts to his paper were political and had nothing to do with science. The research underlying the study was peer-reviewed and is part of a decadelong study Anderson has conducted in partnership with other scientists. The Geological Society of America published the scientists’ results in 2008. “I was a bit astonished,” Anderson tells Mother Jones. “Really this paper is just a review of papers we published previously. There’s no denying the fact that sea level rise has significantly accelerated. The scientific community is not at all divided on that issue.”

    TCEQ even deleted a reference to the fact that the bay is currently rising by 3 millimeters a year—five times faster than the long-term average. The edited version that TCEQ sent back also killed a line noting that the bay’s “future will be strongly regulated by the now rising sea,” as well as the factual assertion that the disappearance of the wetlands is “due mainly to direct human intervention.” The officials also cut out the statement that the water level rise “is one of the main impacts of global climate change.”

    Anderson has refused to let TCEQ publish the heavily edited version of his work. “It would not have been a worthwhile paper,” he says. “It would not have said anything.”

    Jim Lester, the co-editor of the State of the Bay and vice president of the Houston Advanced Research Center, notes that the scientists self-censored before submitting the paper to TCEQ, removing references to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (a favorite target of climate skeptics) and largely avoiding the question of whether humans were causing the climate to change. But that wasn’t enough to keep the paper out of the commission’s crosshairs. The report was supposed to be published in 2010, as the title of it suggests, but it has been delayed. Lester and his co-editor have also said they don’t want their names attached to something that is factually inaccurate. “It damages our scientific credibility,” Lester said.

  81. Denying global warming with John Stossel
    By Lisa Chiu
    The Center for Public Integrity
    July 31, 2008

    ABC News reporter John Stossel doesn’t fear global warming, and he’s working to make sure you don’t, either.

    As part of the Center’s research on global warming critics, we recorded footage of Stossel giving a closing speech at a gathering of climate change skeptics in NYC in March.

    After equating news reports on global warming to fears of killer bees and the Y2K bug, Stossel then criticized coverage of the first day of the conference by the “socialist media,” including The Washington Post , The Independent , and The New York Times .

    Then, finished with alerting the audience to the scourge of global warming “scare mongering,” Stossel turned his attention to helping the 400-plus attendees better sell their skepticism to the media. One tip: They should emphasize specific words to get through to “dumb” reporters.

    “It’s important that you make the effort to get through that dumb layer,” Stossel said. “Some of you are brilliant scientists, but you can’t talk worth a damn, but you can learn how to do this better.”


    Note: Stossel is no longer with ABC. He works for FOX.

  82. The Koch Brothers’ Vast Right-Wing Media Conspiracy
    Watched any conservative programs lately? Chances are, you’ve seen an oil-funded pundit.
    —By Kate Sheppard
    Mother Jones, 2/4/2011

    Last June, Glenn Beck paused in the middle of a rant about the economy and climate on his television show for an important, if rather unexpected, aside. “I want to thank Charles Koch for this information,” he said. Beck’s statement was totally without context, thrown in amid jabs at Al Gore and endorsements of the free market. Months later, it came to light that he recently had been a guest of honor at a semiannual confab sponsored by fossil-fuel billionaire Charles Koch and his brother, David, an event the pair hosts to connect conservative think tanks, politicos, and media types like Beck.

    Koch Industries, a Kansas-based company founded in 1940 by father Fred Koch, is the second largest privately held company in America. Charles and David Koch are tied as the fifth wealthiest people in the nation, worth a combined $43 billion. Their money comes through a variety of business interests—ranching, mining, oil refining, and production of paper products, fertilizer, and chemicals. It would be an understatement to say that they have much at stake when it comes to efforts to cut climate-changing emissions.

    Indeed, the brothers have spent $31.3 million since 2005 on organizations that deny or downplay climate change, according to a forthcoming report from Greenpeace that updates its report on Koch’s climate denial work released last year. But it’s the web of media influence the Kochs have created that perhaps accounts best for their power—particularly when it comes to sowing doubt about climate change.

    Koch Industries describes its semiannual shindigs, which began in 2003, as an “opportunity for attendees and presenters to discuss ways of preserving and advancing economic freedom in the United States and to share ideas about the free-market principles that have made our country great.” The guest list for last weekend’s meeting is still under wraps, but the June 2010 event in Aspen drew a who’s who of conservative media stars; Besides Beck, there were Philip Anschutz, owner of the Examiner newspapers and the Weekly Standard; Charles Krauthammer, syndicated columnist and Weekly Standard contributor; Stephen Moore, Wall Street Journal editorial board member; and Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor for The National Review.

    Andrew Breitbart, the mastermind behind the conservative news sites and, made his presence at the meeting known by rollerblading out to heckle some of the 1,500 protestors who’d gathered outside of the gate.

    The Kochs’ influence over the conservative media may be obvious at such powwows. But to the general public, it’s not always apparent that the pundits they read about in blogs and see on TV have a direct relationship to the company. So says Derek Cressman, regional director of state operations with Common Cause, the group that organized the protests outside the Koch Bros gates. “They don’t see that connection between the pundit and the fact that it’s funded by an oil company,” says Cressman. “The global warming deniers aren’t being candid that their funding is coming from people with an enormous financial stake in how we deal with climate change.”

    Take, for example, Planet Gore, the denialist blog at National Review Online. Planet Gore, along with NRO’s main blog, The Corner, regularly features guest posts by representatives of think-tanks and foundations that have benefited from the Koch’s largesse. Prime examples include Chris Horner and Ian Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who have each posted hundreds of items on the site. NRO’s blogs regularly promote the institute’s work to undermine climate science, such as the lawsuit the group filed against NASA last fall for temperature records. CEI has received more than $700,000 in Koch funds over the years.

    Pat Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, is another regular guest blogger. Cato has received $13 million from Koch family foundations since 1998. (Michaels’ refusal to disclose how much money he’s taken from fossil fuel interests has drawn scrutiny—most recently when a senior House Democrat raised questions about whether he lied on his resume about his funding from energy interests.)

    Other guests representing Koch-funded organizations featured on National Review Online include Jim Manzi of the Manhattan Institute (which has received $1.5 million in Koch family money), Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity ($5.5 million), and Jonathan Adler of the Federalist Society ($2 million).*

    The Koch brothers also spent $1 million on a ballot measure last fall to derail California’s landmark climate law, and funded groups, including the California branch of Americans for Prosperity, that were key in promoting the measure. The Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRI), which has received $1.2 million in Koch money, also rallied against the climate law with a report that made extreme claims about potential job losses it would cause. The day after the report appeared, author and PRI senior fellow Benjamin Zycher appeared on the Planet Gore blog to tout it. (The ballot measure failed despite all these efforts.)

    The Kochs’ influence isn’t limited to fringe media. Krauthammer has used his Washington Post column to blast the “Church of the Environment” that believes the global warming is real, and he has appeared on Fox News to discuss why any legislation addressing climate change is “dead on arrival.”

    The Wall Street Journal has regularly offered up its opinion pages to Cato’s Michaels to bash climate scientists. The Weekly Standard, too, has provided a platform for Koch-backed organizations like the American Enterprise Institute to accuse scientists of being a “corrupt cabal of global warming alarmists.”

  83. Background claims by state Senate’s global-warming skeptic fail to check out
    By Don Shelby | Published Wed, Jun 15 2011

    The Minnesota Senate’s most notable authority on global warming comes from East Bethel. Michael Jungbauer was once its mayor. He is in his third term at the state Legislature and he has fashioned himself into a force of nature when it comes to the environment.

    But Jungbauer doesn’t believe the planet is warming. In fact, he told me, “I think the earth is going to cool.” From his position on the Senate Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications Committee, he has the power to change the way Minnesota approaches the issue. And his influence is apparent. The Minnesota Legislature has been busy undoing much of Minnesota’s nation-leading policies enacted to deal with global warming.

    He is also a television star, of sorts. He makes little videos on his pet theories and puts them on his webpage and on

    No scientist
    The problem is, he is not a scientist. Even though his published biography lists his higher education credits from Moody Bible Institute, Anoka Ramsey Community College and Metropolitan State University and that he is working on his master’s degree in environmental policy and that he has a background in biochemistry, it turns out he has never graduated from college. He doesn’t have a bachelor’s degree.

    He is an ordained minister, of sorts. But, although his official biography says he has a degree from Moody, he does not. In direct answer to my question, Jungbauer responded: “No I did not graduate. But I have a certificate.”

    The truth is that Jungbauer was ordained by Christian Motor Sports International out of Gilbert, Ariz. His Senate biography says the organization provides “chapel services, pastoral care, outreach and Christian fellowship at car races, car shows, cruise-ins and tractor pulls.”

    Now, if you are going to take on the most noted scientists in the world working on CO₂ and its effects on a warming planet, you would need a background in science. And he is ready to tell the members of his committee and witnesses who come to testify that they are dealing with a man not to be toyed with. A sample of his officious, talking-down-to-the-rest-of-us approach can be seen here.

    He has said he has a major in biochemistry. That suggests he received a degree with enough credit hours to give him a major in that important science. But he does not have a degree in biochemistry. He told me that he is getting a master’s degree in environmental policy at Metropolitan State University, but that school doesn’t have a master’s program in environmental policy. When I asked him about that, he said: “Well, that’s what they told me.”

  84. Speaker Boehner’s New Energy Policy Advisor Is A Global Warming Denier
    May 03, 2011

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) just announced the appointment of Michael Catanzaro, formerly of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Bush administration, as his new energy policy advisor. Boehner’s press release announcing the hiring doesn’t mention climate change, or any other environmental concern, but that’s no surprise given Catanzaro’s history of mocking the threat of global warming.

    While serving as communications director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee during President Bush’s first term, Catanzaro’s vitriolic attacks on “climate alarmists” frequently appeared on the far-right Human Events website. Catanzaro’s pieces cited of the likes of Citizens for a Sound Economy and the Competitive Enterprise Institute — right-wing organizations driven by ideology, not science. (CSE was founded by Koch Industries, the far-right polluters and oil thieves who bankroll much of the conservative movement. CEI has also enjoyed significant funding from big polluters like Koch and Exxon Mobil.)

  85. OCTOBER 12, 2011
    by Paul Homewood

    Back in August Katharine Hayhoe, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas Tech University, gave an interview to Yale Environment 360 which was published in full by the Guardian in the UK as well as many other press outlets.

    In the interview, in answer to the question “have you seen sizeable increases in average temperatures that could be defined as climate change?”, she is quoted as saying :-

    “What we’ve actually seen, at least in West Texas, is an increase primarily in winter temperatures. Our very cold days are getting less frequent and our winter temperatures are increasing in nearly every station we look at across Texas and Oklahoma.”

    A quick look at the NCDC data showed this was not the case. In Texas, winter temperatures have declined by 0.06F per decade over the last 100 years and the 2010/11 winter was the 36th coldest during that time. Furthermore the temperature has declined by 0.51F per decade since 1990.

    When challenged about this on the “Reasonable Doubt on Climate Change” website Dr Hayhoe replied that :-

    “In this case, my comment on winter temperatures is based on my analysis of the 50-odd stations in West TX, OK and NM that fall into the Koppen climate classification of cold semi-arid, or Bsk.”

    However an analysis of 10 stations in the area of West Texas she is referring to shows quite clearly that there is no long term warming trend. Indeed the pattern is exactly the same as the whole of Texas.

    When I questioned Dr Hayhoe about this apparent anomaly, she replied “I’m always referring to long-term climate trends — in the case of this analysis, from 1965 to 2010 “

    In other words the trend is drawn from the middle of the coldest decade on record since 1930.

    I was keen to give Katharine the chance to tell her side of the story and so asked for her answers to the following questions.

    1) Would you agree that the winter temperatures in the part of West Texas you referred to in the Yale 360 interview have from 2001-2011 been about the same as the average from 1931-2000?

    2) Is there any long term trend in temperature since 1930 and if so what?

    3) You say you can identify climatic trends over a period of 30 years or so. Is 30 years enough to do this when there is evidence that PDO and AMO cycles typically last 50-60 years? Please give your reasoning.

    4) Do you agree the 1930-60 period saw warmer temperatures compared to the 1960-90 period that followed it? Can you identify the causes of this cooling?

    5) Assuming that we agree that this cooling happened, can we be sure that the warming seen principally in the 1990′s was not caused by the same factors that caused the earlier cooling?

    6) Do you agree that temperatures for the last 40 years are about the same on average as the period 1931-70? If so is there any reason not to regard current temperatures as anything other than “normal” (by 20th C standards!!).

    You say you are keen to talk to sceptics,so I guess it is over to you now, Katharine.

  86. Bdaman:

    are you implying GW scientists are making false comparisons and fudging data to make it look like there is an increase in temperature when what may actually be happening is a decrease in temperature?

    When I was in grade school they were talking about a new ice age coming.

  87. Bron check this out.

    Solyndra funder Kaiser paid zero taxes for years

    Oklahoma billionaire George Kaiser has been in the headlines in recent months thanks to his role as a major investor in Solyndra LLC, the now-bankrupt California solar panel maker hailed by President Obama as a model for America’s “clean energy future.”

    Congress is investigating why the Obama administration gave Solyndra a $535 million loan guarantee despite multiple warnings from career bureaucrats and private sector investment experts that the company was a poor risk, lacked a realistic business model and was likely to go bankrupt as a result.

    But the Solyndra scandal is far from Kaiser’s first brush with political controversy. As the Sunlight Foundation’s Bill Allison reports today, Kaiser has become extraordinarily wealthy by taking advantage of the federal tax code in ways that some tax experts – including the IRS – believe to be illegal.

    As Allison describes it in his Sunlight post today, “in one six year period, during which he increased his net worth enough to land him on the Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans, Kaiser reported taxable income to the Internal Revenue Service just once, totaling $11,699–equivalent to a full-time hourly wage of $5.62.”

  88. Then there’s this

    Solar company with $1.2 billion taxpayer loan guarantee, political connections exhibits signs of financial trouble

    As failed solar panel manufacturer Solyndra rides through the investigative ringer in Congress, revelations of another politically-connected company that received what appears to be a less-than-virtuous $1.2 billion loan guarantee are surfacing.

    The company, SunPower, received its $1.2 billion loan guarantee in September, immediately before the program’s deadline.

    SunPower isn’t as financially sound as the public was led to believe when it secured a loan guarantee twice the size of Solyndra’s $535 million loan. Just this week — less than a month after taxpayers landed on the hook for SunPower’s $1.2 billion loan guarantee — company executives announced that they expect to lower their 2011 earnings projections.

    The company also carries $820 million in debt, which is $20 million more than its market capitalization.

    Read more:

  89. Bdaman:

    are you implying GW scientists are making false comparisons and fudging data to make it look like there is an increase in temperature when what may actually be happening is a decrease in temperature?

    Yes and this is the reason why the tide has turned. Look at the latest polls on the subject and see how people poll when asked that question.

    They have gotten away with lying through their teeth and it has finally caught up to them.

  90. Rasmussen reports that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided.

    Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009. One in four (25%) believes scientists agree on global warming. Another 18% aren’t sure.

    Republicans and adults not affiliated with either major political party feel stronger than Democrats that some scientists have falsified data to support their global warming theories, but 51% of Democrats also agree.

    Men are more likely than women to believe some scientists have put out false information on the issue.

    Democrats are more likely to support immediate action on global warming compared to those from other party affiliations.

  91. Bdaman:

    that Kaiser thing is a big deal, it looks like he ponied up the cash and Obama gave him a big fat loan so he could pony up more cash for the 2012 election. that way Kaiser doesnt have to work as hard at bundling, he can just stroke a check paid for by tax payers.


  92. Bdaman:

    I think you would have to be on life support with no EEG readings to believe there is no confirmation bias going on in regards to GW scientists.

  93. Bdaman,

    Wow! Climate experts from the “Not a Lot of People Know about That” and “Reasonable Doubt on Climate Change” blogs weigh in on the subject of climate change. Who would question their knowledge of the subject?

  94. Bron just look above from Hansen himself.

    Burning issue: Hansen’s evidence that the world is hotting up

    he sites Moscow, August 2010

    Russia experienced its hottest-ever summer last year – for weeks, a large portion of European Russia was more than 7 °C (12.6 °F) warmer than normal, and a new national record was set of 44 °C (111 °F). Raging forest fires filled Moscow with smoke, forcing the cancellation of air services and obliging people to don face masks.

    but yet his sister organization says Natural Variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave That Killed Thousands

  95. Like they say someone is wrong on the internet.

    Look at the dupes who told us snowfall is a thing of the past due to climate change. Now they tell you record snowfalls due to climate change.

    Brown spot in your underwear due to climate change. Brown spot not in your underwear due to climate change:)

  96. You guys can whistle past the graveyard all you want. If a Rasmussen poll said that 59% of the people asked thought gravity was made by elves, would that make it so? Sorry, I do not get my science from polls.

    Global warming and climate change caused by human activity is a fact. Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact. Anti-science idiocy promoted by the 1% is a fact. Get over it.

  97. O.S. sorry for your loss, my condolences. In re to St. Jude. We have adopted children through their program and donate frequently. I’ll see what we can do with your request and please keep me informed.

    I know it’s hard to rest easy with a heavy heart but try and get some my friend.

    All the best !!!!!!

  98. Bdaman, we adopted one when she was only a baby–for real. When her birth parents were told the diagnosis they just went home, leaving her at the hospital. She had a non-survivable type of cancer.

    There was this never-say-die oncology nurse who took her over and brought her home one day. Thanks to the best cancer nurse on the planet taking care of her and some of the best doctors, she did well and will be 23 years old in a couple of weeks. She was not supposed to be able to learn to read because of the chemotherapy causing a type of brain damage. But she now types 104 words per minute, plays the bagpipes and is about to graduate college in December. That is a hell of a mother. She liked to say that our daughter did not grow under her heart, but in it.

    If anyone wants to send St. Jude a donation, they can let me know via email. I have a Gmail account, username: Ottscribe.

  99. Raff, you do not know the half of it. As i mentioned to you in an email, I am working on a book about her. She misses her mom terribly.

  100. Bdaman,

    People used to believe that the sun revolved around the Earth. That didn’t make it true…did it?


    “Men are more likely than women to believe some scientists have put out false information on the issue.”

    We gals are just more advanced in our thinking than you fellas.



    Ditto what rafflaw said in both of his comments.

  101. Bdaman
    1, October 13, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    are you implying GW scientists are making false comparisons and fudging data to make it look like there is an increase in temperature when what may actually be happening is a decrease in temperature?

    Yes and this is the reason why the tide has turned. Look at the latest polls on the subject and see how people poll when asked that question.

    They have gotten away with lying through their teeth and it has finally caught up to them.

    someone got in a hurry

  102. Bdaman,

    People used to believe that the sun revolved around the Earth. That didn’t make it true…did it?

    Ms. Elaine something I’ve said here at Turley’s over and over is it’s the sun stupid. People use to say, including top climate scientist that the sun has nothing to do with climate change. That didn’t make it true.

    With that said, For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.

    Quite why this has been the case is difficult to fathom. But it’s been clear for a long time that there must be a link of some kind, ever since decades ago Professor Lamb discovered an empirical relationship between low solar activity and higher pressure across higher latitudes such as Greenland.

    Perhaps the art of weather forecasting has become so dominated by supercomputers, and climate research so dominated by the impact of man on global climate, that thoughts of how natural processes, such as solar variation, could influence our climate have been largely overlooked, until very recently.

    In fact new research published this week & conducted by the Met Office and Imperial College London, showing how solar variability can help explain cold winters, will come as no surprise to readers of this blog.

    Most studies in the past have largely focused on the sun’s brightness, but this research has discovered that it’s the variation in the sun’s Ultra Violet (UV) output that’s crucial.

    According to the new paper, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, when UV output is low, colder air than normal forms over the tropics in the stratosphere. This is balanced by a more easterly flow of air over the mid-latitudes. The cold air in the stratosphere then makes its way to the surface – leading to bitterly cold easterly winds across the UK and parts of Europe.

    When UV output is higher, the opposite is true, with warmer air making its way to the surface, and carried across the UK and Europe from the west.

    Of course there are other factors involved in determining our weather, and this alone does not mean scientists have discovered the holy grail of long range forecasting.

  103. Bdaman:

    Doesnt Piers Corbyn think the sun is the culprit as well?

    How could you not? Take the sun away and earth ceases to have any weather at all. The sun provides the energy to heat the air and the water to provide the currents of air and water which create weather. Seems rather logical.

    Any change in solar activity would result in more or less energy directed at earth and a change in currents of air and water and thus a change in weather. Man made activity might have some small effect but to melt the poles or increase the temperature significantly? In my mind a very, very, very small possibility and certainly not worth the expenditure to “prevent”.

    As you say “it is the sun, stupid”.

  104. Bdaman,

    “Ms. Elaine something I’ve said here at Turley’s over and over is it’s the sun stupid. People use to say, including top climate scientist that the sun has nothing to do with climate change. That didn’t make it true.

    “With that said, For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.”


    So–you’re saying–climate scientists and I have said that the sun has nothing to do with weather and global warming…the sun has nothing to do with the “greenhouse effect?”


    Climate Change–Science (EPA)

    Energy from the Sun drives the Earth’s weather and climate. The Earth absorbs energy from the Sun, and also radiates energy back into space. However, much of this energy going back to space is absorbed by “greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1 of Greenhouse Effect). Because the atmosphere then radiates most of this energy back to the Earth’s surface, our planet is warmer than it would be if the atmosphere did not contain these gases. Without this natural “greenhouse effect,” temperatures would be about 60ºF lower than they are now, and life as we know it today would not be possible.

    During the past century humans have substantially added to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, oil and gasoline to power our cars, factories, utilities and appliances. The added gases — primarily carbon dioxide and methane — are enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, and likely contributing to an increase in global average temperature and related climate changes.


    Global Climate Change Causes: A Blanket Around the Earth (NASA)


    Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect”1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

    Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as “forcing” climate change whereas gases, such as water, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as “feedbacks.”

  105. As Deepthroat said “Follow the money”. Who benefits if nothing is done, who benefits if something is done? Look at the names funding the research, bogus or disinterested, pro or con. That tells you all you need to know. It’s always the money.

  106. So–you’re saying–climate scientists and I have said that the sun has nothing to do with weather and global warming…the sun has nothing to do with the “greenhouse effect?”

    Not all of them.

    Ask yourself this Ms. Elaine, why in the past 100-200 years did we have all the global catastrophic weather events such as flooding, hurricanes, drought, tornadoes etc. etc. when CO2 was say around 300 ppm or less and now C02 gets blamed for all of it now when actually we see no increase in frequency to those said catastrophic events.

    Pick out any weather phenomenon and I’ll show you there is no increase in trend. Pick out any and I’ll show you newspaper clippings from 100 years ago that the same things have happened as today with less frequency.

    Again after Katrina Al Gore who is not a climate scientist said basically that with the heating of the oceans because the planet is getting hotter that Katrina type storms would become the norm. In reality that hasn’t happened, in fact the reverse is true and a fact.

    Tornadoes are no more today than of yesterday. Thats a myth based on better reporting by storm chaser and the fact of increased population in the area’s most affected.

    Drought, floods, typhoons doesn’t matter.

    Remember a few years ago for the winter Olympics they had to truck snow in because there wasn’t enough snow? It’s happened before back in the 30’s or 40’s if my memory serves me correctly but yet the media directs you to believe it’s because of Global Warming. Don’t get me wrong, I believe the planet has warmed but not for the reasons you do.

    Think of it this way. When the sun has a high UV index what happens to your skin? It takes less time to give you a sunburn. Think of every living thing. What effect do you think UV rays has on them. What effect does a long period of extended UV rays do to the planet. Can people get a sun burn in winter even though it might be 30 degree’s outside with snow on the ground. Probably not because they have clothes on. But if you were able to withstand the cold with no clothes you would get the shit burned out of you if the UV index was high no matter it being winter.

    Yes Bron I am very familiar with Piers Corbyn and I believe it’s one reason why the CRU is now listening to what he has been preaching. His forecast in the past has consistently beaten the CRU’s super duper cliamte computer over and over again. He must know something the computer doesn’t

    The man who repeatedly beats the Met Office at its own game
    Piers Corbyn not only predicted the current weather, but he believes things are going to get much worse, says Boris Johnson.

    Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.
    Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its “mild winter” schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year’s mythical “barbecue summer”, and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.

  107. Here’s a little factoid for all of you.

    The world’s ten deadliest floods occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    24 of the deadliest tornado’s happened when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    The strongest and deadliest US hurricanes occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    Nine of the world’s ten deadliest hurricanes and typhoons occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    In the worlds history CO2 has been higher up to 20 times of what it is today but we are all still here.

  108. This is why people don’t trust the alarmist. Gavin Schmidt author of the book Climate Change picturing the science used a picture of Lake Powell located in Northern Arizona as his cover and to illustrate the effects of Global Warming. Lake Powell at the time of the picture 2004 was at all time lows for level. He warned that this would be the new norm. Lake Powell has risen 81 feet since then.

    Al Gore airbrushed Hurricanes into the cover of his book because there hasn’t been any major hurricanes. So what did he do ? he Photoshopped them in.

    Not finding any, Gore airbrushes in hurricanes for his new book
    Posted on November 19, 2009 by Anthony Watts

    Al Gore’s new book had a problem – no big hurricanes since Katrina to put in the book to look “threatening” to the USA. Any imagined link between hurricanes and global warming has evaporated.

    Solution: the artists airbrush.

    Ryan Maue, hurricane expert from Florida State University writes:

  109. Ms. Elaine there’s a new book out. This is going to blow the lid off the so called Climate Experts.

    Here are some early reviews

    This expose, by an investigative journalist, is the product of two years of research. Its conclusion: almost nothing we’ve been told about the IPCC is true.

    “Blooming brilliant. Devastating” – Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist

    “…shines a hard light on the rotten heart of the IPCC” – Richard Tol, Professor of the Economics of Climate Change and convening lead author of the IPCC

    “…you need to read this book. Its implications are far-reaching and the need to begin acting on them is urgent.” – Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

    Definitely the best book to date on the politics of climate science.
    *Many “lead authors” were grad students with no published science.
    *Dozens of contributors and authors had previously signed up as WWF activists.
    *Some chapters were mainly activist “grey” literature.

    I can’t see how the IPCC can survive this forensic scrutiny of its practices.

    You can download and or read part of Chapter 7 here. You can get a free sample sent to your Kindle. Enjoy

  110. Well you can still read chapter 7.

    Open your mind Ms. Elaine and you just might see the light.

    I mean that in a sincere way.

  111. Ha ha

    I’ve studied both sides and use to be a believer in the spoon fed theory. I decided to become a herder and not be part of the flock. I hope you like where they are leading you. I’m trying to lead you to a greener pasture.

  112. Bdaman,

    I’d say you’re still a believer in the “spoon fed theory.”

    I prefer to keep my mind open. No one will lead me anywhere that I don’t choose to go.

  113. Elaine,

    I do not know one person that I have ever not met that I honestly believe this statement from you…and that is one of the reasons I respect you…….. “No one will lead me anywhere that I don’t choose to go.”

  114. Elaine,

    With all due respect…You have said it…so it must be so…No need to double check…Your word is good with me….Plus you were are still are…a teacher…and I see you put your librarian skills to use here recently…

  115. Elaine,

    That cuts in every direction….I don’t care if Liberal, Progressive or so called Conservatives….

  116. Here’s a little factoid for all of you.

    The world’s ten deadliest floods occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    24 of the deadliest tornado’s happened when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    The strongest and deadliest US hurricanes occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    Nine of the world’s ten deadliest hurricanes and typhoons occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    In the worlds history CO2 has been higher up to 20 times of what it is today but we are all still here.

  117. CO2 is only one factor in a vast number of factors. It takes a supercomputer to do the multiple regression calculations and even then, the damn thing gets bogged down.

    To list CO2 as THE key variable makes as much sense as making bovine farts responsible for hurricanes. It is one of a number of variables that are interconnected.

    But you knew that, I am sure.

  118. OS,

    I am willing to wager our very own math-man….Slarti…can figure this out given the proper variables….

  119. AY, I am not sure if Slarti’s expertise, as formidable as it is, would be up to this task. I know enough to be dangerous to myself and others, which means that I have a reasonably good grasp of the enormity of the dynamics of the problem. The disciplines needed to even tackle the problem of global warming and climate change include mathematics, meteorology, physics, oceanography, fluid dynamics, chemistry, biology, botany and astrophysics. I am sure I forgot a discipline or two. My point is that the oversimplification demonstrated by posts such as the ones above by Bdaman do not even begin to scratch the surface of explaining what is going on with our planet. Not just one person or group of persons can tackle this problem. As I have pointed out to my colleagues numerous times during criminal investigations, no one knows everything.

  120. April 27, 2009
    Global Climate Coalition Ignored Own Scientists’ Advice

    It’s coming to light that for years the Global Climate Coalition, an industry funded group that has argued that global warming is a sham, ignored the advice of scientists on its own payroll, according to the New York Times.

    Scientists told the coalition that the science behind global warming was irrefutable, according to a court document.

    For years, the coalition, which is funded by the oil, coal and auto industries, touted its message that “the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood” and that “scientists differ,” according to the story.

    Yet, experts on the coalition’s’ payroll wrote in a 1995 internal report that “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”

    The coalition spent millions throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s spreading its message that global warming was not based on science.

    By promoting doubt, the coalition took advantage of the news media reporting both sides of an issue, George Monbiot, a British environmental activist and writer, told the New York Times.

    “They didn’t have to win the argument to succeed,” Monbiot said, “only to cause as much confusion as possible.”

  121. Otteray Scribe 1, October 14, 2011 at 8:59 pm

    CO2 is only one factor in a vast number of factors. It takes a supercomputer to do the multiple regression calculations and even then, the damn thing gets bogged down.

    To list CO2 as THE key variable makes as much sense as making bovine farts responsible for hurricanes. It is one of a number of variables that are interconnected.

    But you knew that, I am sure.

    350 is the number that leading scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide—measured in “Parts Per Million” in our atmosphere. 350 PPM—it’s the number humanity needs to get back to as soon as possible to avoid runaway climate change.

    Dr. James Hansen, of NASA, the United States’ space agency, has been researching global warming longer than just about anyone else. He was the first to publicly testify before the U.S. Congress, in June of 1988, that global warming was real. He and his colleagues have used both real-world observation, computer simulation, and mountains of data about ancient climates to calculate what constitutes dangerous quantities of carbon in the atmosphere. The Bush Administration has tried to keep Hansen and his team from speaking publicly, but their analysis has been widely praised by other scientists, and by experts like Nobel Prize winner Al Gore. The full text of James Hansen’s paper about 350 can be found here.

    Make no mistake—getting back to 350 means transforming our world.

    350 is a very important number according to the experts.


    The world’s ten deadliest floods occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    24 of the deadliest tornado’s happened when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    The strongest and deadliest US hurricanes occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    Nine of the world’s ten deadliest hurricanes and typhoons occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    In the worlds history CO2 has been higher up to 20 times of what it is today but we are all still here.

  122. It takes a supercomputer to do the multiple regression calculations and even then, the damn thing gets bogged down.

    Think about what you just said

    and even then, the damn thing gets bogged down.
    and even then, the damn thing gets bogged down.
    and even then, the damn thing gets bogged down.

    but yet we rely on it to tell us what our world will look like in 50-100 years.
    Even the best daily weather models don’t get it right 100 percent of the time in a 24 hour period even though they are run 3-4 times a day.
    Where is the Super computer you speak of located?

    The UK Met Office

    Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.

    Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.

    The man who repeatedly beats the Met Office at its own game
    Piers Corbyn not only predicted the current weather, but he believes things are going to get much worse, says Boris Johnson.

    Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.

    Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its “mild winter” schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year’s mythical “barbecue summer”, and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.

  123. Weather supercomputer used to predict climate change is one of Britain’s worst polluters

    It is capable of 1,000 billion calculations every second to feed data to 400 scientists and uses 1.2 megawatts of energy to run – enough to power more than 1,000 homes.

    The machine was hailed as the ‘future of weather prediction’ with the ability to produce more accurate forecasts and produce climate change modelling.

    However the Met Office’s HQ has now been named as one of the worst buildings in Britain for pollution – responsible for more than 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.

    It says 75 per cent of its carbon footprint is produced by the super computer meaning the machine is officially one of the country’s least green machines.

    Read more:

  124. I am aware of the PR disaster that is the MET supercomputer. However, even if it is an energy hog, the computations are still pure science and should be taken seriously.

    The newest climate study supercomputer is only a short distance from where I live. That is the supercomputer for unclassified weather and climate research at Oak Ridge, TN. It is one of the most energy efficient supercomputers in the world and is capable of peak performance up to 20 petaflops.

    Petaflop = one million billion calculations per second.

  125. O.S. I’ll put Piers Corbyn up against any of them any day of the week.
    He doesn’t use a supercomputer but a lap top.

    The unique power of the forecasts has also been proven by the profits on Scientific Weather Bets with William Hill at odds and verification organized independently by the UK Met Office.

    In 4,000 Weather Test Bets over 12 years with William Hill, Weather Action forecasts made a profit of some 40% (£20,000). The Odds were statistically fair and set by the Met Office before being shortened by William Hill by a standard 20%; the results were then provided by the Met Office for William Hill to settle each bet. Piers Corbyn was excluded by the bookies from such account betting in 2000.

    Bets and notional bets can be used to estimate Forecasting Power which is the % profit (or negative for losses) on stakes that would come from bets placed at fair odds. For general long range forecasts for the three most extreme recent seasons, namely Summer 2007, Summer 2008 and Winter 2008-09 The Met Office long range forecast Power is minus 100% (ie Met Office long range forecasts failed in all three cases) and WeatherAction (Solar Weather Technique) scores about plus 500%.

    Many companies and organizations have carried out their own assessments of WeatherAction forecasts and consequently renew their purchase of forecasts.

  126. O.S. any reply to CO2 being leveled at 350 ppm and it’s importance and weight given by the top climate scientist. The so called safe zone.

    Any thoughts on what guarantees could be given if CO2 is leveled at 350 ppm that we will avoid catastrophic events even though as I laid out most of those events happened when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    Anybody ?

  127. How Good Is He, Anyway?

    How accurate are Piers Corbyn’s long-range forecasts? There’s really no way to tell. You can of course compare them with the observed weather, but, straightforward as that sounds, it’s an imperfect method since Corbyn’s forecasts speak in general terms.

    Some investigators have tried indirect analysis of the reliability of Corbyn’s predictions. Dennis Wheeler, a geography researcher at the University of Sunderland, has found that the probability of Corbyn’s accuracy being the result of chance in his six-month-ahead gale forecasts is one in a thousand; over a two-year period, the odds that the forecasts resulted from chance were “several hundreds to one.” Another study pondered whether it was even possible to render objective assessments of descriptive weather forecasts. Researchers Ian and Nils Jolliffe had this tough-to-dispute summary of Weather Action’s outlooks: “It is unusual for most of the detail to be completely correct, but equally it is rare for nearly everything to be wrong … Some forecasts are clearly very good, and a few are very poor, but the majority fall in the gray area in between, where an optimistic assessor would find merit, but a critical assessor would find fault.”

    In the accompanying chart, Corbyn’s October 1998 forecast, published in late September, is compared with a daily summary of the observed weather in the UK for the month based on daily regional averages.

    The thumbnail assessment: Corbyn scored one remarkable hit for the month – his prediction that October 22-24 would see a major storm packing high winds and heavy rain. For the rest, we wouldn’t plan picnics around his prognostications – or, for that matter, those put out by the UK Meteorological Office, published within a week of Corbyn’s. Corbyn headlined October as a “mostly dry and mild” month; the Met Office said it would be “predominantly unsettled” (the weather is ever thus) with “temperatures mostly above average.” Neither crystal ball revealed the generally cool, very, very wet month that unfolded.

    – Dan Brekke

  128. Bdaman:

    Ottery Scribe said:

    “CO2 is only one factor in a vast number of factors. It takes a supercomputer to do the multiple regression calculations and even then, the damn thing gets bogged down.

    To list CO2 as THE key variable makes as much sense as making bovine farts responsible for hurricanes. It is one of a number of variables that are interconnected.

    But you knew that, I am sure.”

    Isnt that what the GW crowd is doing? Saying CO2 is a gas which needs to be limited to avoid warming the earth.

    Am I missing something?

  129. No, your not Bron. this is worth repeating.

    350 is the number that leading scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide—measured in “Parts Per Million” in our atmosphere. 350 PPM—it’s the number humanity needs to get back to as soon as possible to avoid runaway climate change.

    Dr. James Hansen, of NASA, the United States’ space agency, has been researching global warming longer than just about anyone else. He was the first to publicly testify before the U.S. Congress, in June of 1988, that global warming was real. He and his colleagues have used both real-world observation, computer simulation, and mountains of data about ancient climates to calculate what constitutes dangerous quantities of carbon in the atmosphere. The Bush Administration has tried to keep Hansen and his team from speaking publicly, but their analysis has been widely praised by other scientists, and by experts like Nobel Prize winner Al Gore. The full text of James Hansen’s paper about 350 can be found here.

    Make no mistake—getting back to 350 means transforming our world.

    350 is a very important number according to the experts.


    The world’s ten deadliest floods occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    24 of the deadliest tornado’s happened when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    The strongest and deadliest US hurricanes occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    Nine of the world’s ten deadliest hurricanes and typhoons occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    In the worlds history CO2 has been higher up to 20 times of what it is today but we are all still here.

  130. How Good Is He, Anyway?

    Piers Corbyn was excluded by the bookies from such account betting in 2000.

    Why because he kept taking their money based on his accuracy.

  131. Elaine:

    dont you think Corbyn has learned a thing or 2 in the last 13 years and his computing power and technique have improved?

  132. SB

    Don’t you think the climate scientists have learned “a thing or 2 in the last 13 years” too?

    No because they say 350 ppm is the safe zone and history shows us that it’s not. I think CO2 should be eradicated.

  133. If we don’t Ms Elaine we could all die from catastrophic events.

    The world’s ten deadliest floods occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    24 of the deadliest tornado’s happened when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    The strongest and deadliest US hurricanes occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    Nine of the world’s ten deadliest hurricanes and typhoons occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.

    In the worlds history CO2 has been higher up to 20 times of what it is today but we are all still here.

  134. Elaine:

    “Don’t you think the climate scientists have learned “a thing or 2 in the last 13 years” too?”

    Only if they are honest actors and dont have an agenda. Corbyn sells his information to people who need to take financial decisions based on weather patterns. Apparently he makes money at this.

    I would say he needs to be accurate at predicting the weather to increase his bona fides and by extension his pocket book.

    Being full of shit is only possible for a short while in the market but can fester for years in academia and government.

  135. Bron,

    Weather and climate are not exactly the same thing.

    I’d say the Kochs, Exxon, and other fossil fuel producers and corporate polluters are the ones with the agenda. They are funding many of the climate change deniers.

  136. Weather and climate are not exactly the same thing.

    daily weather turns in to weekly weather which in turn turns to monthly.
    Monthly turns into yearly and yearly turns into climate. 30 years of that daily, weekly, monthly figures defines the period in which climate is determined.


    When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather.

    As they say weather is climate.

  137. Elaine M.,

    I am not a denier of the weather changing….It is…and it does…The fact is there is nothing we can do about it…So long as the earth rotates on its axis (wherever that may be) we are in good shape…It is my belief and I am unsure exactly where my understanding on this came from that all of the universe works in connection with each other…The Magnetic North Pole has shifted quite a bit….if that is true…then any affect or effect on the earth is gyrational…. FWIW here is a link to airports and the affect it has had on them…

    Shift in magnetic north pole affects… Tampa airport–Tampa-airport.html

    Also, I recall a series on the True Channel (so it has to be true, right) that caskets shifted in a crypt every once in a while…The islanders became very suspicious…apparently they still have people looking for buried treasures…and it was either 3 or 4 of the 6 caskets that were in disarrays…They posted armed secured guards at the entrance so no one would be able to get in…or out…I think that they had installed cameras inside as well…It was dark and they never went on until a year later and wallah…they were moved…what was learned was that the caskets that moved were made from metal…the others were wooden….and I think it was Uranus or one of the planets like that that make a close rotation that year….and they researched that effect and it had happened pretty much like that when the caskets were moved…If I recall it was the Bermuda Triangle Series…

    So far as business causing pollution…they do…and they should be required to clean it up…another thing in Midland, MI where Dow Chemical is located…Reeds are growing around a lake….from what I read about reed it is a natural soil and water cleaners…

  138. I’d say the Kochs, Exxon, and other fossil fuel producers and corporate polluters are the ones with the agenda. They are funding many of the climate change deniers.

    Ms. Elaine the money spent by these that you mentioned pale in comparison to what money is available to the alarmist.

  139. Elaine:

    I am with Bdaman on this. He knows more than most people do about this subject and he has a website dedicated to weather forcasting.

    When Bdaman talks, people listen.

  140. Bron,

    Lots of people have websites. What does that prove? Some people will listen to Bdaman. That doesn’t mean that they will believe or be convinced by everything he says.



    “Ms. Elaine the money spent by these that you mentioned pale in comparison to what money is available to the alarmist.”

    What is the agenda of the climate scientists–whom you refer to as “alarmists?”? How much have they received and from whom?

  141. Elaine M.,

    I am trying to say that it will change…the weather just like the seasons…Some years are spectacular some are not..Pollution happens naturally (by people) and organically…Some are worse than others…But nature will figure out a way to cure itself..

  142. One famous scientist Ms. Elaine

    Thu, Jul 28, 2011
    Monnett coordinated much of BOEMRE’s research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, had duties that included managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint.

    October 14, 2011

    Polar Bear Researcher To Be Re-Interviewed By Feds

  143. Michael Mann one time payment. Imagine just how much in total over the years he was in charge of.

    In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy.

  144. Bdaman,

    Hansen is a proponent of nuclear power.

    The National Center for Public Policy Research is a conservative think tank. I believe Jack Abramoff once served on its Board of Directors. Here’s a story about the NCPPR and some other groups:

    The fear merchants
    “Fright mail’ fund-raisers targeting elderly with scare tactics?

    About NCPPR from Sourcewatch:

    In 1997, NCPPR opposed action on global warming at an international summit in Kyoto, Japan. It established the Kyoto Earth Summit Information Center, issued an “Earth Summit Fact Sheet” and fed anti-treaty quotes to the media through a “free interview locator service” that offered “assistance to journalists seeking interviews with leading scientists, economists and public policy experts on global warming.”

    Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, NCPPR began using the rhetoric of anti-terrorism to attack environmentalists. In May 2002, it created the Envirotruth web site, to attack what it called the “jihad” that environmental activists are waging against corporations.

    In 2002 ExxonMobil donated $30,000 for “educational activities” and a further $15,000 for general support. [3] In 2003 the company boosted its general operating support to $25,000 with another $30,000 for ‘global climate change/EnviroTruth website”.[4]

    According to the organization’s 2002 IRS return, total revenue was $6.6 million, with $399,080 spent on fundraising consultancy fees to a Virginia direct mail company, Response Dynamics Inc..[5]

    While NCPPR is keen to scrutinize the fundraising and advocacy of organizations it disagrees with, it has come in for criticism itself. In 1998, the San Francisco Examiner reporter Diana Walsh reviewed the rise of direct mail campaigns using scare tactics to raise funds from senior citizens. Walsh reported that in one four month period, 86 year old senior citizen, Faye Shelby, received 685 letters from 78 organizations. 160 of the fundraising pitches were from NCPPR.

    Amy Moritz Ridenour told the Examiner that anyone receiving more than a dozen solicitations in a month probably was on mailing lists the National Center “rented” from other organizations, which she said were outside her control. When lists are rented, a group pays to use the list but for proprietary reasons isn’t allowed to look at individual names or cross reference for duplications on their own lists. Ridenour also said an emotional pitch was vital to raising funds. “People seem to respond better
    to emotion than they do with letters that have lots and lots of facts. You have to give something that is light enough that people will be willing to read it upon receipt. . . . If they don’t read it right at that moment, all the studies show they never will.”


    Climategate was a ginned up controversy.

    Excerpted from the article that you provided a link to:
    “The spreadsheet listing all successful grant applications made by Professor Jones was part of the batch of leaked documents. It shows Professor Jones, along with other academics at the university, received
    more than 50 separate grants with a value of £13.7 million from a number of funding bodies including the European Union, Nato, and the US department of energy.

    “Several British bodies also gave substantial sums including the Met Office, the Environment Agency, the National Rivers Authority and the Department for the Environment.”


    Are the groups that funded Jones left-wing think tanks supported by liberals who own corporations that would benefit financially if people believed that climate change was real?

  145. Quick Fact: Beck guest host revives debunked climate email claim in attack on Mann
    January 15, 2010

    Glenn Beck guest host Eric Bolling and guest Tom Borelli, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), used a grant awarded under the stimulus bill to climate scientist Michael Mann to revive the debunked claim that emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University, some of which were written by Mann, undermine the scientific consensus that manmade global warming exists. Further, at no point during the segment did Bolling or Borelli disclose that NCPPR has received funding from the oil industry.

    Fact: Climate experts, fact-checkers dispute notion that emails undermine climate change consensus

    Fact-checks: Emails “misrepresented by global-warming skeptics.” As Media Matters has documented, fact-checks by the Associated Press,, and have examined the emails and came to similar conclusions. The AP found that “the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked”; PolitiFact stated that “[i]ndependent of CRU’s data, agencies and academics all over the world are coming to essentially the same conclusion: Climate change is happening”; FactCheck stated that “many of the e-mails that are being held up as ‘smoking guns’ have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics eager to find evidence of a conspiracy. And even if they showed what the critics claim, there remains ample evidence that the earth is getting warmer.”

    Nature: “Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real.” A December 2 editorial in the science journal Nature stated: “Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.”

    Climate experts agree that voluminous evidence exists backing up manmade global warming. More than 1,700 scientists from the United Kingdom signed a statement responding “to the ongoing questioning of core climate science and methods,” stating in part that “We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive.” Similarly, the American Meteorological Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both issued statements reaffirming the idea of manmade climate change; in the words of the AAAS, “The vast preponderance of evidence, based on years of research conducted by a wide array of different investigators at many institutions, clearly indicates that global climate change is real, it is caused largely by human activities, and the need to take action is urgent.”

    Fact: Borelli’s group has received funding from the oil industry
    Since 2001, National Center for Public Policy Research received $390,000 from Exxon Mobil. According to Conservative Transparency (operated by Media Matters for America’s sister organization Media Matters Action Network), NCPPR received $390,000 in funding from Exxon Mobil from 2001 through 2008. According to the NCPPR’s website, the group “advocates private, free market solutions to today’s environmental challenges.”

  146. AY,

    “I am trying to say that it will change…the weather just like the seasons…Some years are spectacular some are not..Pollution happens naturally (by people) and organically…Some are worse than others…But nature will figure out a way to cure itself..”

    Do you really believe that no matter how much we pollute this planet…no matter how many habitats we destroy that the Earth will be able to “cure itself?” I do think we may some day reach the point of no return.

  147. Elaine,

    You are probably right…But…. re are some things outside of my control and yours….They are the requirement of businesses not to pollute…..They have to pay to clean up….well…Under Ronnie…they got to take it off off of the return….You and I pay….

  148. Elaine:

    how is a point of no return possible? What is the worst thing that can happen? If all of the ice in the world melts and we end up having less land what is the problem? the entire human race can fit comfortably in a land mass the size of the US.

    And how would all the ice melt anyway? You would have to increase the average temperature of the polar regions to above 0 degrees Celsius for a prolonged period of time. How would that be possible? The average earth temperature now is about 16 degrees Celsius.

    It would take a long time for 7,000′ of Antarctic ice to melt in any event.

    The average temperature at the Arctic and Antarctic poles are -17 degrees Celsius and -52 degree Celsius respectively.

    You would have to raise the Polar temperatures by 18 and 53 degrees to start melting the ice. But again so what? Earth had plenty of living creatures when average temperatures were much warmer than now.

    How many degree rise in average earth temperature would it take to raise the temperature of the poles to melt ice? Does anyone even know for a fact or is it all supposition?

  149. Bron,
    With all due respect, how the hell can the entire world live in a land mass the size of the United States and how is that situation not a calamity and not worth preventing?

  150. rafflaw:

    the US is plenty big enough to support the worlds entire population. Do the math yourself, it works.

    It would be worth preventing if it were a real calamity but I think it is a manufactured calamity with a political motive at its root.

  151. The Arctic has been relatively ice free before.

    Ten times she is able to surface. Once, at the North Pole, where crewmen performed a mission of sentiment, scattering the ashes of polar explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins. In 1931, he was the first to attempt a submarine cruise to the Pole. Now, the Skate’s twelve-day three thousand mile voyage under the ice, shown in Defense Department films, demonstrates that missile-carrying nuclear subs could lurk under the Polar Ice Cap, safe from attack, to emerge at will, and fire off H-bomb missiles to any target on Earth.

    A powerful, retaliatory weapon for America’s defense.

    “the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet.”

    Scroll down to see the pics of the nuclear sub USS Skate at the above link to see for yourself.

  152. Bron,

    I’m not considering just the melting of ice caps. I’m taking into consideration the pollution of the air, oceans and other bodies of water, land–and the destruction of different habitats.

    “the entire human race can fit comfortably in a land mass the size of the US.”

    Good luck with that!


    Just do the math, will ya???


  153. Elaine,
    I will avoid math any way that I can! So all of China and Inia and Indonesia along with all of the USA could live “comfortably” in the US? Of course Bron, you do realize that much of our lower coastline areas would be under water, don’t you?

  154. Winter ice loss is the reason the Arctic isn’t full of 5,000 year old sea ice.

    In 2007, the Arctic lost a massive amount of thick, multiyear sea ice, contributing to that year’s record-low extent of Arctic sea ice. A new NASA-led study has found that the record loss that year was due in part to the absence of “ice arches,” naturally-forming, curved ice structures that span the openings between two land points. These arches block sea ice from being pushed by winds or currents through narrow passages and out of the Arctic basin.

    Beginning each fall, sea ice spreads across the surface of the Arctic Ocean until it becomes confined by surrounding continents. Only a few passages — including the Fram Strait and Nares Strait — allow sea ice to escape.

    Despite Nares’ narrow width, the team reports that in 2007, ice loss through Nares equaled more than 10 percent of the amount emptied on average each year through the wider Fram Strait.

    They found that in 2007, Nares Strait drained the Arctic Ocean of 88,060 square kilometers (34,000 square miles) of sea ice, or a volume of 60 cubic miles. The amount was more than twice the average amount lost through Nares each year between 1997 and 2009.

    The ice lost through Nares Strait was some of the thickest and oldest in the Arctic Ocean.

  155. The world population is the total number of living humans on the planet Earth, currently estimated to be 6.97 billion by the United States Census Bureau as of October 5, 2011.

    Area of the US in square miles – 3.79 million square miles

    Population density of New York City – 29,480 people per square mile in neighborhood density.

    Population Density in land area the size of the US – 1,839 people per square mile.

    1,196 inhabitants per square mile in New Jersey
    18,943 people per square mile in Singapore or almost 10 times what it would be in a land area the size of the US.

    So there is plenty of land for human population. So why worry about the polar ice caps melting? There will be plenty of land left if the ice caps melted.

    Looks like like a hell of a lot of land left to me. And Look at green land, wow an entire continent is there.

    Most of the environments are still in existence.

    So even if we could warm the earth enough to melt all of the ice into water we would still have most of the land mass intact. In fact with the addition of Greenland we might have a net gain.

    There is no way human activity is going to increase temperatures enough to melt all of the ice caps in the world.

    Most pollution is taken care of by technology. If CO2 is a pollutant then we better kill every living thing in the world.

    This would be laughable if so many people didnt take it seriously.

  156. Ahh Ha the new things we learn. Keep in mind the Satellite was launched in 2003 and is the first EVER to measure the suns solar radiation.

    With that said we find out that the Sun’s 11-year cycle means we’re in for Arctic freeze this winter.

    Piers Corbyn just got a big pat on the back. Of course this is nothing new for him. He knew this way before they even launched the satellite.

    By Leon Watson

    Last updated at 12:27 PM on 10th October 2011

    Dr Adam Scaife, from the Met Office, one of the study’s authors, said: ‘Our research establishes the link between the solar cycle and winter climate as more than just coincidence.

    ‘We’ve been able to reproduce a consistent climate pattern, confirm how it works, and quantify it using a computer model.

    ‘This isn’t the sole driver of winter climate over our region, but it is a significant factor and understanding it is important for seasonal to decadal forecasting.’

    But scientists have struggled to incorporate these ultraviolet (UV) signals into climate models.

    Today’s findings, published in Nature Geoscience, used satellite measurements from NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) to reveal that differences in UV light reaching the Earth during the 11-year solar cycle are larger than previously thought.

    The satellite, launched in 2003, is the first ever to measure solar radiation across the entire UV spectrum.

    Read more:

  157. Another key point from the article

    But scientists have struggled to incorporate these ultraviolet (UV) signals into climate models.

    Which means with out important data incorporated into the climate models the reliability of the models can not be trusted.

    I’ve said time and time again.

    Models are only as good as the information they are fed. A human feeds the model. It takes a well balanced meal in order to stay healthy.

    If they keep putting garbage into the model runs it’s how do you say ?

    garbage in, garbage out

  158. Bron,

    Did you factor into your calculations the amount of land that would be needed to support food production–land for grazing animals,raising chickens, and growing crops? What about fresh water for drinking–and land for forests?


    “Most pollution is taken care of by technology.”

    Is it really?

    Water pollution: Dawn of the ‘Dead Zones’
    April 20, 2008

    It’s thousands of square miles wide, virtually devoid of oxygen and it has been blamed for an increase in shark attacks: the Gulf of Mexico “Dead Zone” is getting bigger and forcing marine life — including sharks – into shore.

    The zone has been caused by a flood of nutrients, such as agricultural fertilizers, which boost algae production in the sea. These growths consume huge amounts of oxygen creating a “marine desert” almost devoid of life.

    The “Dead Zone” varies in size each year, but in 1999 it was 7,728 square miles — that’s nearly the size of Delaware and Connecticut combined.


    Toxic Waters: A Series about the Worsening Pollution in American Waters and Regulators’ Response
    New York Times
    September 30, 2011

  159. “Most pollution is taken care of by technology.”

    and or tiny microbes to which act as a garbage disposal

    The last (and only) defense against the ongoing Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is tiny—billions of hydrocarbon-chewing microbes, such as Alcanivorax borkumensis. In fact, the primary motive for using the more than 830,000 gallons of chemical dispersants on the oil slick both above and below the surface of the sea is to break the oil into smaller droplets that bacteria can more easily consume.

  160. Elaine:

    if all the world’s ice melted most of the land mass is still above water. And yes if you look at the densities in cities there would be plenty of land for farming. But since the change is land area is not all that significant there is still plenty of land left in all countries and greenland is a net gain.

    Look at the map I linked to.

    The water and air are much cleaner today than when I was a kid, so yes technology has helped do that.

    If we have all this pollution regulation why are we getting dirtier water?

  161. Bron,

    “And yes if you look at the densities in cities there would be plenty of land for farming.”

    Where are your calculations? Have you done the math?

    How much agricultural land is needed to sustain a population the size of New York City?

  162. We had a great tuna trip on the ‘Big Adventure’ this past week. We Orange Beach charterscaught plenty of 10- to 12-pound blackfin tuna, seven yellowfin tuna weighing an average of 60-pounds each and a 130-pound bigeye tuna. We also caught several wahoo and plenty of amberjacks, scamp, vermillion snapper and white snapper. Tuna fishing and amberjack fishing usually produce that type of catch, but it’s usually an overnight trip. On the ‘Sea Hunter,’ we caught our limit of amberjacks that weighed 40- to 50-pounds each. We had 13 fishermen onboard, and everyone caught amberjacks. We also caught 2- to 3-pound white snapper and vermilion snapper and mackerel that weighed 15- to 18-pounds each. We had great fishing.

    “The weather’s been good, and the fish have been biting. October always has been one of our best times of the year to not only catch numbers of fish, but also really-big fish. Although I tried to fish places where we don’t usually find red snapper, my party still caught and released plenty of 8- to 10-pound red snapper. These snapper put-up a good fight, and they’re beautiful fish to photograph. We released the red snapper to fight another day. As the weather begins to cool-down, we’ll catch more and bigger wahoo on our longer trips when we fish for tuna. Bottom fishing should continue to get better.”

  163. Fish still suffering after BP oil spill
    By Kate Spinner
    October 2, 2011

    Signs of last year’s BP oil spill have nearly vanished from the marshes along Louisiana’s Gulf coast, but the fish there are still turning up with life-threatening deformities and reproductive problems.

    According to a new study, fish living in marshes exposed to BP crude showed clear signs of oil-related toxicity, even when only trace amounts of oil could be detected in their tissues and the environment.

    The fish showed damage to their gills, making it harder for them to get oxygen and adapt to natural changes in salinity and temperature.

    The study also revealed that the marsh water was toxic to fish eggs, even when it tested clean by conventional sampling.

    Scientists have found much higher amounts of oil chemicals lingering in the marsh sediments, which could make the marsh a chronically toxic environment for years.

  164. Eline,

    The reason I would like for a Total posting is that we may get a full p; respective….and then maybe this will go away….

  165. Mr. Morriss Gets Acquainted With Irish Confetti

    Merriam-Webster: Irish Confetti – “A rock or brick used as a missile.”

    We recently wrote about professional clean energy critic Andrew Morriss being schooled by Center for American Progress’s Kate Gordon before a friendly crowd at the fossil industry-funded CATO Institute. Back in April, Mr. Morriss couldn’t answer Ms. Gordon’s inconvenient points about the huge government welfare checks received by the dirty energy industries that fund him while he rails against pro-clean energy policies.

    Morriss, you see, is a front man for the front group, the Koch-funded Mercatus Center at George Mason University; the Koch-funded Property & Environment Research Center (PERC); and the ExxonMobil and Koch-funded Institute for Energy Research. I’m guessing that he, like others in the cottage industry of anti-clean industry front groups, has been trying to raise more dirty energy money by showing he can put an equals sign between the Solyndra bankruptcy and broad pro-clean energy policies.

    In fact, that’s the only explanation I can come up with for why Mr. Morriss would volunteer for another embarrassment. The latest one took place on the Dylan Ratigan Show. Morriss once again blundered right into the core question for which people of his kind have no answer: Why small government advocates ignore $52 billion or more in taxpayer welfare to dirty energy interests – but have the time to waste blathering about how pro-clean energy policies aren’t a good use of our money.

    Mr. Ratigan was having none of it, starting off the interview with a round of Irish Confetti: “…we do not have a free market for energy, because the actual cost of fossil fuel in our economy is not reflected at the pump; the military’s not in there, the environment’s not in there, and there’s a wide variety of differing fuel subsidies and tax treatments for all sorts of different fuel sources depending on their relation with our government. So, how can a marketplace decide the fuel source, when one fuel, particularly being gasoline and fossil fuels, have such a substantial comparative subsidy?”

    Morriss, stumbling: “Right, right, well, you know, that’s a good point, but the answer to one bad subsidy is not to have two bad subsidies…”

    Ratigan (cutting off Morriss): “But I didn’t say that, I didn’t bring you on to indict the president. I’m with you, the president that’s crazy, what they’re doing is crazy, let’s not waste our time on it. But let’s talk about the actual problem, which is that the marketplace cannot function if the actual cost of what is in it is rigged. And in this case, we are not paying the actual cost of the fossil fuels, and as a result, no one wants to see $8 a gallon for anything, when I can get $4 a gallon and pass the military costs and all the rest of it off. I guess my question to you is, what would the marketplace do if it was faced with paying the real cost of fossil fuel at the pump?”

    Morriss, again stumbling: “Well, people would use a lot less of it, and that’s what we want…and so if you price them accurately, people will conserve…so, we have a mechanism to get conservation, it’s worked for 100 years, we’ve been conserving energy in a variety of things…people conserve when prices go up, it’s a simple thing it’s not popular with politicians, but it’s a simple way to fix the problem.”

    Morriss’s Palin-esque wanderings only invited more, this time from co-host Sam Seder: “Hey, Andrew, I’ve got a question for you. If it’s the case that we subsidize oil, and we’ve been doing carbon-based subsidies since we built the highways, since we promoted cars, since we subsidized these oil companies directly, $50 billion worth of nuclear subsidies, why write an entire book about the tiny subsidies? I mean, you can shrug off the notion of one subsidy isn’t as good as the other but we have the chance to incentivize and to build an industry that will have benefits across the spectrum of society. Why are you focused on that one?”


    Bought and Biased Punditry

  166. Let the weather fear monger shoot for the stars…..I am sure in the min d set…Everything takes care of itself……While discounting the other effects….

  167. Elaine:

    1,255,452 square miles of land to feed the earths population based on 5,000 sq. ft. per person and that is using organic farming techniques not modern agricultural methods. So it would probably be less area. But you can have roof top gardens which will not only yield food but reduce energy requirements and help with urban run off. Sewage could also be treated on roof tops supplying nutrients for the the vegetables.

    So I stand by my contention that the entire people of earth could live comfortably in an area the size of the United States.

    I wouldnt worry too much about Global Warming.

  168. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official correspondence on non-governmental communication accounts, which a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA requests. This “cloud” serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

    Although this is seedy and unlawful at any time, it also goes in the “bad timing” file, especially for the Obama Administration and the UN.

    Just as a brand new book further exposes the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (whose scams I dissected here, and in more disturbing detail here), and on the heels of the weekend surprise of a 2005 memo showing President Obama’s cooling/warming/population zealot of a “science czar” John Holdren is the kind of guy Mitt Romney turns to for developing his “environmental”’ policies, we’ve exposed the Obama administration and IPCC have cooperated to subvert U.S. transparency laws, operating domestically out of Holdren’s White House office.

    With this morning’s Freedom of Information Act request, the explaining they have to do must begin by providing the taxpayer certain records regarding — including but not limited to — user names and passwords for a backchannel ‘cloud’ established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA, thereby also seeking to undermine the Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978.

    The IPCC, you will recall, is Al Gore’s co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize and the host over the years of numerous scandals involving fudged and twisted climate data, research plagiarized from student theses, popular magazine articles, and green-group press releases, and, of course, the infamous Climategate emails which showed coordinated efforts to “hide the decline” in temperature data. This is not just one more scandal, however. This is much bigger.

    Until the Request is posted at, consider the following:

    * CEI’s FOIA request details how the UN informed participants that it was motivated by embarrassing releases of earlier discussions (“ClimateGate” key among them) and, to circumvent the problem that national government transparency laws posed, the group itself.

    * CEI reminds OSTP that this practice was described as “creat[ing] non-governmental accounts for official business” and “using the nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications” in a recent analogous situation involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff. CEI expects similar congressional and media outrage at this similar practice to evade the applicable record-keeping laws.

    * This effort has apparently been conducted with participation — thereby direct assistance and enabling — by the Obama White House which, shortly after taking office, appointed Holdren’s office to the lead role on IPCC work from the Department of Commerce. The plan to secretly create a FOIA-free zone was then implemented.

    * This represents politically assisting the IPCC to enable UN, EU, and US bureaucrats and political appointees to avoid official email channels for specific official work of high public interest, performed on official time and using government computers, away from the prying eyes of increasingly skeptical taxpayers.

    * CEI also reminds OSTP of a similar, ongoing effort by the administration to claim that records on U.S. government computers belong to the UN IPCC, refusing to produce them under FOIA. This practice was affirmed in a report by the Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General earlier this year.

    As talks resume next month to forge legislation to act as a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol, CEI looks forward to OSTP ceasing this unlawful activity and providing prompt access to the requested records so the taxpayer can know what they, and the IPCC, are up to.

    So this morning, we requested all relevant records under FOIA, including all records sitting on that server, as they all were provided to US government employees for official purposes. This was filed with OSTP run by controversial “science czar” and, we now know, former Mitt Romney “climate” adviser John Holdren. The taxpayer deserves to know about this coordinated effort between Holdren’s OSTP and the UN.

    Possibly one Republican candidate will call in the next debate for ending US funding of the IPCC, now shown to be actively working (with the Obama White House) to subvert US law. Enough is enough is enough. Possibly Governor Romney could defend Holdren and the IPCC.

    In the meantime, we look for Rep. Henry Waxman to reprise the level of outrage he displayed over Abramoff to prove it was also not political and come down hard on the practice he so aggressively condemned and pursued, demanding preservation of records, threatening subpoenas, the whole works. With our request, that’s essentially what we’ve done, and we’d appreciate the company. You too, NPR.

    Of course, it may not be of interest to the media, because it only uncovers unlawful dealings to hide an effort impacting our entire economy, the premise for that “fundamental transformation” of America, with the sleazy lobbying operation being the UN. We’ll wait on OSTP’s response and hope for the best from the Hill and Republican candidates.

  169. Bdaman:

    No wonder Romney is so well respected in the top echelon of the republican party. If he makes it I am going to just vote for Obama or write in Herman Caine.

  170. The wheels on the bus are falling off the man-made global warming thingy.
    Ms. Elaine thinks it’s some type of right wing conspiracy when all it really is people now seeing the truth.

  171. “Some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.”

    – John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, “What We Must Do, and the Cost of Failure,” in Holdren and Ehrlich, Global Ecology (1971), p. 279.

    “We have been warned by our more cautious colleagues that those who discuss threats of sociological and ecological disaster run the risk of being ‘discredited’ if those threats fail to materialize on schedule.”

    – John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, eds., Global Ecology (1971), p. 6.

  172. Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued, “if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”[21] In 1973, Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because “210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many.”[22] In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended “the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences” such as access to birth control and abortion.[12][23]

  173. Bdaman:

    could it be that the Texas report left out/censored references to AGW because the science is far from settled?

  174. Bron you tell me

    But scientists have struggled to incorporate these ultraviolet (UV) signals into climate models.

    Today’s findings, published in Nature Geoscience, used satellite measurements from NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) to reveal that differences in UV light reaching the Earth during the 11-year solar cycle are larger than previously thought.

    The satellite, launched in 2003, is the first ever to measure solar radiation across the entire UV spectrum.

    Read more:

  175. If you’ve missed the recent brouhaha over the E-Cat (which stands for Energy Catalyzer), you’re missing out on a three ring circus over a technology that will either change everything or change nothing because what is promised is, in theory, power too cheap to be worth metering.

    If this device works as claimed, the world will change and not just a little but hugely and at every level of how we’re organized, how we make stuff, how we travel, and how wealth is distributed. And those changes won’t just impact the US or the Western hemisphere; they well transform the entire world because incredibly cheap energy is the ultimate game changer.

    So, here’s what I’m wondering: If the E-Cat does work, how will ultra-cheap energy transform your world? Imagine the following:

  176. What needs to be canceled is this administrations stance on everything.

    n the fall of 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama made a campaign promise to jumpstart the economy with an influx of green jobs. “We’ll invest $150 billion over the next decade and harness private efforts to build a clean-energy economy,” he said. This expenditure of taxpayer dollars, averaging $15 billion a year, would then “create 5 million new jobs that pay well, and can never be outsourced.”[1]

    The President has kept his promise to spend billions of borrowed dollars on green energy, but his promises that such spending would create a new, self-sufficient industry capable of providing millions of jobs for Americans have proven empty. The President’s stimulus law alone included tens of billions in new government subsidies for politically favored renewable-energy interests: $6 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy investments; $17 billion for the Department of Energy’s energy efficiency and renewable energy programs; $2 billion for energy-efficient battery manufacturing; and billions more on other “clean-energy” programs for a total of $80 billion.

    Two years later, the President’s promise of millions of jobs stands in stark contrast with reality. As a recent report from a Bay-Area news organization made clear, green jobs predictions are “proving a pipe dream.”[2]

    Reality Versus Fantasy

    Why haven’t the President’s promises translated into real economic gains? The answer lies in the federal government’s unsuitability for the role the President wants it to play. Since his inauguration, the President has spoken often of the federal government as an “investor” in alternative sources of energy. But the federal government’s job is to make and enforce the rules of the road, so that markets are fair, transparent and competitive – in other words, to foster an environment that is conducive to private-sector job creation.

    When the government takes on the role of “investor,” it usually does so because, according to the party in power, the “wrong” companies are winning in the free market, and the “right” companies are losing. By seeking to pick winners and losers in a dynamic and diverse economy, the government-as-investor model distorts markets, weakens the rule of law, wastes taxpayer dollars, and fails to spur sustainable job creation.

  177. Bdaman and Bron,

    I’m glad you fellows are enjoying yourselves. I suggest you two pitch in and get a 10,000 square foot prime piece of agricultural land together. Then you can show the rest of us how you can raise your own animals, fruit, and vegetables–all the food you’ll need to sustain yourselves.

  178. Bdaman,

    I knew you’d return to this discussion even after you said that you had given up trying to persuade those of us who are not climate change deniers that we’ve got blinders on.

    You just couldn’t help yourself, could you?


  179. No ma’am and no disrespect to you either MS. Elaine. I now you put alot of hard work and reading into this post and for that I commend you. I mean that sincerely.

    All of your post as a quest blogger are always well thought out, but this one particularly I can tell you did alot of research prior to making it.

    Although I do not agree you did an excellent job Ms. Elaine😉

  180. Bdaman,

    You do not agree that there are think tanks and groups funded by the Kochs who are trying to convince people that climate change is a scam and who are trying to eviscerate the EPA?

    I have nothing to gain by believing that humans are contributing to global warming. I really hope the majority of climate scientists are wrong–but I don’t think they are. I live near the coast. My house is little more than a stone’s throw from a tidal estuary.

    I think it best to address ways we can cut down on the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. If we could do that, wouldn’t it be good for our planet?

  181. Ms. Elaine the focus is on CO2 that’s the mantra. Remember 350 ppm is the safe zone. I’ve already pointed that out. James Hansen expert in climate science says so.

    With that said, look up how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and what percentage it makes up of all greenhouse gases. Then look up what percentage of that percentage comes from man vs nature


    97% of CO2 is emitted by nature. How do you wish to control that.

  182. Bdaman:

    “97% of CO2 is emitted by nature. How do you wish to control that.”

    So man emits 3% of all available CO2? Is that true? And we think modifying our output is going to have an impact?

    Why all the fuss? Are you sure that is right? We are making an economic decision based on trying to go from 3% to 2.75% CO2 output? Are you kidding me?

  183. The lawsuits to list the polar bear as endangered were never about protecting polar bears. Instead they were nothing more than a back door approach to regulate CO2 and stop responsible development from moving forward. This is a good decision, not only for Alaska but for this nation as we look to become more energy independent.

  184. So man emits 3% of all available CO2?

    yes but it’s said man is responsible for 30% of what is in the atmosphere.

    Now they want man to pay for his sins.

  185. Bdaman:

    how can we be responsible for 30% when we emit only 3%? Does nature somehow know our CO2 from plant CO2 and then says lets leave man’s CO2 alone and let it sit there?

    So nature only sequesters natural CO2 and not man made? How is that possible? Do the molecules have a made in America/China/India stamp on them?

  186. Maybe some more reasonable voices are starting to emerge in the Republican party:

    Republican Environmental Group Seeks To Put Conservation Back On The Conservative Agenda
    By Tom Zeller Jr.
    Huffington Post

    Rob Sisson, the president of the group Republicans for Environmental Protection, walks something of a lonely road these days. His group, founded in 1996, aims to restore what it calls the “great conservation tradition” of the GOP.

    “We think the Republican Party has lost its way the last couple of decades,” Sisson told The Huffington Post in a recent interview. “We look at conservative talk radio and the Contract With America back in the early 1990’s as kind of the point where the party diverged from its legacy.”

    That legacy reaches as far back as Abraham Lincoln, the nation’s first Republican president, who signed legislation in 1864 to protect California’s Yosemite Valley, laying the groundwork for what would become Yosemite National Park. Theodore Roosevelt, another Republican, later created hundreds of national forests, bird sanctuaries and reclamation projects during his tenure from 1901 to 1909. “The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem,” Roosevelt once said. “Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others.”

    Dwight D. Eisenhower established the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Richard Nixon, Sisson noted, “signed almost every major piece of environmental legislation that we take for granted today.”

    How profoundly things have changed.

    It was back in July when Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman (Calif.) and Ed Markey (Mass.) first shined a spotlight on what they called “the most anti-environment House of Representatives in history.”

    At the time, they’d documented a total of 110 measures voted on by the Republican-controlled chamber that were aimed at scaling back protections for air and water, blocking climate regulation or dismantling measures designed to protect public lands.

    On average, the lawmakers reported, 97 percent of Republicans voted in support of such measures.

    As of this week, the number of such anti-environment proposals earning votes in the House has ballooned to 168, according to a database set up by Waxman, including one measure passed last Friday that would effectively block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating coal combustion waste — known as coal ash — as a toxic material.

  187. I had never heard of Rob Sisson’s group Republicans for Environmental Protection before:

    The philosophy of Republicans for Environmental Protection

    We are Republicans. We share a deep concern for the environment.
    We know that a healthy environment and a sound economy are both essential to our nation’s prosperity.

    We believe that by working together, we can preserve both our environment and our economy for current and future generations of Americans.

    We Want:
    – Clean air and water
    – Food free from harmful chemicals
    – Clean, efficient businesses & industries
    – A high quality of life in our cities & rural communities
    – Strong, results-oriented enforcement of environmental laws
    – Economic development for communities without the ravages of sprawl
    – High priority for funding of natural resource stewardship & environmental protection
    – Protection for posterity of our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, wild lands & waters
    – Effective legal protection for threatened & endangered plants & animals in their native habitats

    We support and vote for Republican elected officials and candidates who share these values and concerns.


  188. From the Republicans for Environmental Protection website: FAQ

    Talking About Climate Change
    Part 1 – Science

    How do scientists know that climate change isn’t the result of natural causes?

    The documented increase in the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide levels over the past 250 years is very unusual. Since 1750, CO2 levels have increased far outside the range in which they fluctuated during the past 650,000 years, as documented from ice samples extracted from deep inside large ice caps. The ice samples serve as a time capsule because
    they contain bubbles of ancient air that can be analyzed for CO2 content. Ratios of air molecules in those bubbles can be used to discern long-ago air temperatures. In addition, the rate of CO2 increase is highly unusual given what’s occurred before. Reconstructions of past climate conditions using proxy temperature data and computer models show that the second half of the 20th century likely was the warmest 50-year period in the past 1,300 years.

    The recent increase in CO2 has been attributed to burning fossil fuels, because carbon contained in these fuels has a chemical signature that differs from carbon that originates from inorganic sources, such as volcanic eruptions.

    Scientists have examined the possible role of natural causes in accounting for recent global climate change. For example, there has been a small increase in energy output from the sun during the industrial era, but it is well below the level that would be required to explain all of the documented increase in global average temperatures.

    In addition, the pattern of warming, such as warming of the atmosphere’s lower levels and cooling at higher levels, is inconsistent with warming patterns that would occur if natural factors were the cause.


    I’ve heard that climate scientists rely on computer models for climate research. How reliable are these models?

    Climate models sometimes are derided as little more than guesswork, but such criticisms are off base. Climate models are mathematical representations of climate that are based on the laws of physics. Models are continually subject to vetting and validation. Models have been tested by comparing their simulations of current climate change with actual observations, such as the faster increase in nighttime temperatures compared to daytime temperatures that has taken place.

    Modeling is not the only way that climate scientists go about their work. Scientists carry out extensive field research around the world, collecting data from the atmosphere, oceans, ice caps, and ecosystems. This work expands knowledge about climate phenomena and improves understanding of the many ways that climate change will affect the natural world and human society.

  189. TPMDC
    Climate Change Deniers Abandon ‘Befuddled Warmist’ Physicist Who Came Around On Global Warming

    Climate change deniers thought they had an ally in Richard Muller, a popular physics professor at UC Berkeley.

    Muller didn’t reject climate science per se, but he was a skeptic, and a convenient one for big polluters and conservative anti-environmentalists — until Muller put their money where his mouth was, and launched the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, in part with a grant from the Charles G. Koch foundation.

    After extensive study, he’s concluded that the existing science was right all along — that the earth’s surface is warming, at an accelerating rate. But instead of second-guessing themselves, his erstwhile allies of convenience are now abandoning him.

    “When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find,” Muller wrote in a Friday Wall Street Journal op-ed. “Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.”

    That’s put a small but influential group of anthropogenic global warming skeptics and climate change deniers on the war path.

  190. Koch brothers accidentally fund study that proves global warming:
    The latest global warming results confirm those from earlier, independent studies by scientists at NASA and elsewhere that came under fire from skeptics in an episode known as ‘climategate’.
    By Pete Spotts, Staff writer / October 21, 2011
    Christian Science Monitor

    A new climate study shows that since the mid-1950s, global average temperatures over land have risen by 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.6 degrees Fahrenheit), confirming previous studies that have found a climate that has been warming – in fits and starts – since around 1900.

    Most climate scientists attribute warming since the mid-1950, at least to some degree, to carbon dioxide emissions from human activities – burning coal, oil, and to a lesser extent gas, and from land-use changes.

    The latest results mirror those from earlier, independent studies by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in Britain, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    These previous efforts, however, came under fire from some climate-change skeptics who said they had detected serious flaws in the analytical methods and temperature records the three groups used.

    The new research, which has yet to be formally published but which appears in four papers posted on, uses new analytical techniques and a much larger set of records than the previous studies did.

    Indeed, the new approach to analyzing temperatures records allowed the team to make use of partial and older records previous studies had rejected as unusable, explains Richard Muller, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who coordinated the effort.

    In the end, the team’s result shows that the earlier studies “were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate-change skeptics did not seriously affect” the conclusions these studies reached, said Dr. Muller, who some climate activists have labeled a global-warming skeptic.

  191. Climate Skeptics Take Another Hit
    —By Kevin Drum
    Fri Oct. 21, 2011

    Physicists are notorious for believing that other scientists are mathematically incompetent. And University of California-Berkeley physicist Richard Muller is notorious for believing that conventional wisdom is often wrong. For example, the conventional wisdom about climate change. Muller has criticized Al Gore in the past as an “exaggerator,” has spoken warmly of climate skeptic Anthony Watts, and has said that Steve McIntyre’s famous takedown of the “hockey stick” climate graph made him “uncomfortable” with the paper the hockey stick was originally based on.

    So in 2010 he started up the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST) to show the world how to do climate analysis right. Who better, after all? “Muller’s views on climate have made him a darling of skeptics,” said Scientific American, “and newly elected Republicans in the House of Representatives, who invited him to testify to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology about his preliminary results.” The Koch Foundation, founded by the billionaire oil brothers who have been major funders of the climate-denial machine, gave BEST a $150,000 grant.

    But Muller’s congressional testimony last March didn’t go according to plan. He told them a preliminary analysis suggested that the three main climate models in use today—each of which uses a different estimating technique, and each of which has potential flaws—are all pretty accurate: Global temperatures have gone up considerably over the past century, and the increase has accelerated over the past few decades. Yesterday, BEST confirmed these results and others in its first set of published papers about land temperatures. (Ocean studies will come later.) Using a novel statistical methodology that incorporates more data than other climate models and requires less human judgment about how to handle it (summarized by the Economist here), the BEST team drew several conclusions:

    ■The earth is indeed getting warmer. Global average land temperatures have risen 0.91 degrees Celsius over the past 50 years. This is “on the high end of the existing range of reconstructions.”

    ■The rate of increase on land is accelerating. Warming for the entire 20th century clocks in at 0.73 degrees C per century. But over the most recent 40 years, the globe has warmed at a rate of 2.76 degrees C per century.

    ■Warming has not abated since 1998. The rise in average temperature over the period 1998-2010 is 2.84 degrees C per century.

    ■The BEST data significantly reduces the uncertainty of the temperature reconstructions. Their estimate of the temperature increase over the past 50 years has an uncertainty of only 0.04 degrees C, compared to a reported uncertainty of 0.13 degrees C in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

    ■Although many of the temperature measuring stations around the world have large individual uncertainties, taken as a whole the data is quite reliable. The difference in reported averages between stations ranked “okay” and stations ranked “poor” is very small.

    ■The urban heat island effect—i.e., the theory that rising temperatures around cities might be corrupting the global data—is very small.

    In the press release announcing the results, Muller said, “Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK.” In other words, climate scientists know what they’re doing after all.

  192. There’s one problem Ms. Elaine Not one of the BEST papers have completed peer review nor has one been published in a journal and they are already finding problems. According to BEST they decided to forgo the normal procedures for the peer review process. Science at it’s BEST.

    The issue of the world warming is not an issue for sceptics it’s the magnitude and whats causing it. CO2 is not solely responsible.

  193. From Doug Keenan this would be a good one for Slarti to review as Keenan is a mathematician.

    The Economist asked me to comment on four research papers from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project. The four papers, which have not been published, are as follows.

    Decadal variations in the global atmospheric land temperatures
    Influence of urban heating on the global temperature land average using rural sites identified from MODIS classifications
    Berkeley Earth temperature averaging process
    Earth atmospheric land surface temperature and station quality

    Below is some of the correspondence that we had. (Note: my comments were written under time pressure, and are unpolished.)

    Unless the data is measured with error, you never, ever, for no reason, under no threat, SMOOTH the series! And if for some bizarre reason you do smooth it, you absolutely on pain of death do NOT use the smoothed series as input for other analyses!

    If, in a moment of insanity, you do smooth time series data and you do use it as input to other analyses, you dramatically increase the probability of fooling yourself! T

  194. The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism
    There were good reasons for doubt, until now.
    WSJ, 10/21/2011

    When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

    Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.


    Mr. Muller is a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of “Physics for Future Presidents” (W.W. Norton & Co., 2008).

  195. Bdaman 1, October 23, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    The issue of the world warming is not an issue for sceptics it’s the magnitude and whats causing it. CO2 is not solely responsible.

    The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism
    There were good reasons for doubt, until now.

    Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.

  196. Bdaman,

    Many climate change deniers have claimed that climate scientists are alarmists. Muller who was a skeptic once believes climate chang is real and that the scientists were unbiased and careful in their work.

    Richard Muller:
    “When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.”

  197. Koch Political Group Brags About Bullying GOP Lawmakers Into Denying Climate Science
    By Marie Diamond on Dec 7, 2011

    In its cover story this week, the National Journal explores a curious phenomenon: while the science supporting climate change has only gotten stronger, the onetime Republican consensus on the issue has fallen apart. The reason, quite simply, is the right-wing polluter Koch Industries and its political front group Americans for Prosperity.

    As Political Correction notes, just three years ago, Republicans including Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) all expressed a belief in human-caused climate change. Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) even supported legislation to reduce carbon pollution. But all of these prominent leaders have since joined the rest of the Republican party “in a sudden and near-unified retreat to silence or denial.”

    What’s changed for Republican politicians is “the influx into electoral politics of vast sums of money from energy companies and sympathetic interest groups”:

    Republicans have long had close financial ties to the fossil-fuel industry, of course. Between 1998 and 2010, the oil-and-gas industry gave 75 percent of its $284 million in political contributions to Republicans. […]

    Among the most influential of the new breed of so-called super PACs is the tea party group Americans for Prosperity, founded by David and Charles Koch, the principal owners of Koch Industries, a major U.S. oil conglomerate. As Koch Industries has lobbied aggressively against climate-change policy, Americans for Prosperity has spearheaded an all-fronts campaign using advertising, social media, and cross-country events aimed at electing lawmakers who will ensure that the oil industry won’t have to worry about any new regulations.

    AFP President Tim Phillips proudly takes credit for the GOP’s turnaround and readily admits that his group threatened politicians with “political peril” if they “played footsie” with green solutions:

    Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, says there’s no question that the influence of his group and others like it has been instrumental in the rise of Republican candidates who question or deny climate science…“We’ve made great headway. What it means for candidates on the Republican side is, if you…buy into green energy or you play footsie on this issue, you do so at your political peril. The vast majority of people who are involved in the [Republican] nominating process—the conventions and the primaries—are suspect of the science. And that’s our influence. Groups like Americans for Prosperity have done it.”

  198. click here…

    […]The Mercatus Center: A Tentacle of the Deregulation-Loving Kochtopus Helping in the Effort to Deny Climate Change and Eviscerate the EPA « JONATHAN TURLEY[…]…

  199. hey, occasionally when I first visit this web page I get automatically redirected to another page which appears very strange. You may well want to have a look at why this is occurring! Cheers

  200. I was curious if you ever considered changing the layout of your site?
    Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could
    a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better.
    Youve got an awful lot of text for only having 1 or 2 images.
    Maybe you could space it out better?

  201. Do you have a spam issue on this website; I also am a blogger, and I was wanting
    to know your situation; we have developed some nice procedures and we are looking to swap strategies with others,
    be sure to shoot me an email if interested.

  202. Hello there, just became alert to your blog through Google,
    and found that it is truly informative. I’m
    gonna watch out for brussels. I will be grateful if you continue this in future.
    A lot of people will be benefited from your writing.

  203. Some of these games have a simple setting and
    an even simpler gameplay, but some of them require more
    time and concentration, and of course patience here is the key virtue, these games tend to have complicated rules which cannot be
    broken under any circumstances. Unlike older Shin Megami Tensei games,
    which have large dungeons, challenging battles, and deep character customization, Innocent Sin is a simpler game that will appeal to RPG fans looking for an excellent overall package.
    Baldurs Gate 2 takes place in the land of Faerun, populated with mystical beings like
    dragons, trolls, gnomes, elves, humans and dwarfs.

Comments are closed.