|Global Warming Denial Machine|
Please read A Response to Climate Change Denialism by Richard Somerville, a distinguished professor emeritus and research professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, and also Global Warming Deniers and Their Proven Strategy of Doubt and then continue below.
The sections below highlight the AGW Denial Machine and its efforts to try to convince policy makers and the general public that the massive scientific evidence for man-made global warming is either false or a "hoax". Many of these denialists are supported by the fossil fuel industry and other companies that stand to lose money if the world gets "greener". However, there are many well-intentioned people who just do not "believe" that humans can cause the world's climate to change because they either do not have access to the peer-reviewed literature (where climate experts communicate their research) or, if they do, they find these journal articles too difficult to read. Instead these well-intentioned people seek their information from more user-friendly avenues such as Websites, books, television, and radio. The problem is that these portals are not typically where the experts in climate science publish. Instead, these are the portals where "misinformation" can be easily spread. Please view the Suggested Reading page where I have listed Web documents, blogs, and books that will provide the current scientific research in a fairly easy to read format (which is the goal of this Website).
Union of Concerned Scientists Exposes ExxonMobil Funded Organizations & Spokespeople:
The Union of Concerned Scientists, in their expose titled: Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air - How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science (2007) show how ExxonMobil waged the most successful and sophisticated global warming denial campaign since that of Big Tobacco's campaign against the dangers of smoking. In their 64 page document, they show that ExxonMobil:
These front groups and their spokespeople are listed below. (Some of these groups and people are discussed in more detail on this Web page below.) Click on any image to see a larger version that can be easily viewed.
Front Groups Page 1
Front Groups Page 2
Front Groups Page 3
Spokespeople Page 1
Spokespeople Page 2
Spokespeople Page 3
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine
According to the Greenpeace document Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine:"Most Americans have never heard of Koch Industries, one of the largest private corporations in the country, because it has no Koch-branded consumer products, sells no shares on the stock market and has few of the disclosure requirements of a public company. Although Koch intentionally stays out of the public eye, it is now playing a quiet but dominant role in a high-profile national policy debate on global warming.
Koch Industries has become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition. This private, out-of-sight corporation is now a partner to ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute and other donors that support organizations and front-groups opposing progressive clean energy and climate policy. In fact, Koch has out-spent ExxonMobil in funding these groups in recent years. From 2005 to 2008, ExxonMobil spent $8.9 million while the Koch Industries-controlled foundations contributed $24.9 million in funding to organizations of the "climate denial machine".
This report focuses on activities by Koch Industries and its affiliates, as well as the family, and company-controlled foundations which fund organizations that spread inaccurate and misleading information about climate science and clean energy policies. Included is research on the company and the Koch brothers, two of the top ten richest people in the United States."
The Organization of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism:
Dunlap & Freeman (2008) in their article The Organization of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism state:Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed 'sceptics' claim to be unbiased analysts combating 'junk science'. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.
They further state: Thus, the notion that environmental skeptics are unbiased analysts exposing the myths and scare tactics employed by those they label as practitioners of 'junk science' lacks credibility. Similarly, the self-portrayal of skeptics as marginalized 'Davids' battling the powerful 'Goliath' of environmentalists and environmental scientists is a charade, as skeptics are supported by politically powerful CTTs funded by wealthy foundations and corporations.
A Few Examples of Organizations that Deny AGW:
The information below has been gleaned from the following sources:DeSmogBlog.com Directory for Organizations
DeSmogBlog.com Global Warming Disinformation Database
James Hoggan's book: Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming.
DeSmog Blog: http://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/1634 & http://www.desmogblog.com/research-sponsors-behind-heartlands-new-york-climate-change-conference
Some of Heartland's key quotes:
Heartland's publications make the following assertions about climate change:
Environment & Climate News
A monthly newsletter espousing very questionable science.
Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
Edited by S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and is the latest attempt by Heartland to discredit the well-established scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. The publication claims that there were 35 contributors and reviewers. Of these 35, only 22 have credentials that relate to one of the climate sciences. Several of these people also do not have any published articles in peer-reviewed journals related to climate. 22 does not stack up well against the 800+ contributing and 450+ lead authors of the IPCC report.
As Carl Sagan often stated, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." When the overwhelming majority of climate experts state that human activities have dominated modern climate change, the NIPCC should have shown extraordinary evidence to support its claim that nature and not human activity causes climate change. Of course, as with much of this document, the evidence is quite flimsy and never approaches that of extraordinary. Much of what is being represented in this document has been thoroughly discredited by experts in climate science at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/not-the-ipcc-nipcc-report/ and http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki.
For example, the document suggests that cosmic rays are influencing climate by contributing to low cloud formation with the following statement: "Empirical evidence suggests very strongly that the main cause of warming and cooling on a decadal scale derives from solar activity via its modulation of cosmic rays that in turn affect atmospheric cloudiness. According to published research, cosmic-ray variations are also responsible for major climate changes observed in the paleo-record going back 500 million years."
According to Pierce & Le Page (2007) observations from satellites and model simulations do not support the cosmic ray hypothesis as a major role in low cloud coverage and climate change. Realclimate.org has visited this topic several times with the most recent called Why the continued interest?.
Skepticalscience.com has also visited this topic and summarizes the lack of a link at the thread It's cosmic rays which concludes that the science says: "While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming."
Regardless of which research one chooses to consider regarding cosmic rays, there is certainly not enough evidence to hang one's hat on when using this hypothesis to claim that nature and not humans are causing the modern day climate change. If there were many scientists showing irrefutable data to support this claim, then perhaps the NIPCC's claims might hold water. The cosmic ray hypothesis is certainly not "extraordinary evidence" and appears be nothing at all.
The final nail in the coffin of this report is that it actively promotes the Oregon Petition Project which is a complete fraud. One cannot take this report seriously for this single fact alone.
Legislator's Guide to Global Warming Experts
Advises that legislators "should oppose unnecessary and costly global warming programs."
Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?
Surfacestations.org claim that the U.S. temperature record is unreliable due to poor placement of monitoring stations.
In 2008, with the help of the Heartland Institute, Joanne Nova (formerly on the payroll of Shell Oil) published The Skeptic's Handbook. The purpose of this document is to help climate change skeptics to defend their position that humans are not causing global warming.
How reliable is Joanne Nova's opinion? According to her own Website:
"Joanne Nova finished her Bachelor of Science degree with first class honours, A+ grades and prizes (at UWA) majoring in Microbiology, Molecular Biology and doing honours research into DNA markers for use in Muscular Dystrophy trials. She also has a Graduate Certificate in Science Communication from the ANU. Joanne worked for three years as an Associate Lecturer for the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication program at ANU." (Nova, 2009)
She certainly cannot be considered an expert in climate science nor has she done any research in the field. One must question why climate change skeptics use a publication from such a source? This publication is being addressed here because this document has gained much traction recently and the serious errors contained within must be corrected.
This document cites the Oregon Petition as proof that there is no scientific consensus. As mentioned previously, the Oregon Petition is fraudulent and is a purposeful attempt to mislead scientists into signing the petition.
Joanne Nova also lists fourteen scientists as "believers are becoming skeptics" along with some of their quotes. In the case of Dr. Joanne Simpson (JoNova spelled her first name Joanna) the document shows the following incomplete quote: "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly." Dr. Simpson's full statement can be found here. Of interest is the following excerpt from Dr. Simpson's full statement: "What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical."
Joanne Nova's source for this list of fourteen scientists is from Senator Inhofe who has assembled a list of "scientists" who are global warming skeptics. This dubious list is known as the "Inhofe 400". According to The Daily Green (2008) and Climate Progress (2007) Inhofe's list includes many people who are not climate scientists such as economists, the retired, TV weathermen, mathematicians, amateurs and industry spokespeople.
Because The Skeptic's Handbook endorses the Oregon Petition and Senator Inhofe's dubious list, one must conclude:
Either way, The Skeptic's Handbook is NOT a reliable source for discussing climate change.
The Skeptic's Handbook also lists four main reasons why man cannot be causing global warming. Each of these arguments is seriously flawed. The four points and their mistakes are detailed below:
Joanne Nova lists her source for this statement as Dr. David Evans who holds degrees in electrical engineering and mathematics but no degrees in any earth sciences. Dr. Evans published "The Missing Hotspot" on his Website at http://www.sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf. This publication was never submitted for peer-review and has never appeared in a legitimate science journal.
There are two flaws with this statement: 1) This hotspot is not a signature of the greenhouse effect - it is a signature of warming from any source, and 2) the hotspot is not missing. According to B.D. Santer et al. (2008): "Using state-of-the-art observational datasets and results from a large archive of computer model simulations, a consortium of scientists from 12 different institutions has resolved a long-standing conundrum in climate science - the apparent discrepancy between simulated and observed temperature trends in the tropics. Research published by this group indicates that there is no fundamental discrepancy between modeled and observed tropical temperature trends when one accounts for: 1) the (currently large) uncertainties in observations; 2) the statistical uncertainties in estimating trends from observations. These results refute a recent claim that model and observed tropical temperature trends "disagree to a statistically significant extent". This claim was based on the application of a flawed statistical test and the use of older observational datasets."
Two other good resources on the so-called missing hot spot can be found at Chris Colose's Skeptics/Denialists Part 2: Hotspots and Repetition and Tim Lambert's David Evans doesn't even know what the hot spot is.
Increased CO2 emissions will result in a warmer lower atmosphere and a cooler stratosphere which is precisely what has been observed (see: Stratospheric Cooling). Recall that climate models cannot accurately predict the climate change observed in the past century by excluding greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities. When including these greenhouse gas emissions along with natural forcing, the models do predict today's climate. Therefore, today's climate is well explained by the measured increases in greenhouse gases.
Before human activities, CO2 was controlled by natural forcing mechanisms that took place over thousands of years. When the climate warmed, more CO2 entered the atmosphere. This increase in CO2 then accelerated the warming so CO2 may not have caused the initial warming but it definitely drove the climate later on. The "CO2 increase lags the temperature increase" argument is moot in today's world because human activities are now driving the CO2 change on very short time scales. CO2 concentrations are known accurately for the past 650,000 years. During that time, they varied between 180 ppm and 300 ppm. As of March 2009, CO2 is 385 ppm which took about 100 years to increase. For comparison, it took over 5,000 years for an 80 ppm rise after the last ice age. Higher values than today have only occurred over many millions of years. The Skeptic's Handbook is comparing apples to oranges. The unprecedented global warming experienced recently is well explained by the measured increases in greenhouse gases.
According to the Handbook: "Satellites circling the planet twice a day show that the world has not warmed since 2001. How many more years of NO global warming will it take? While temperatures have been flat, CO2 has been rising, BUT something else has changed the trend. The computer models don't know what it is."
This statement is patently false! Satellite data "infers temperature" and is not a direct measurement of temperature. That is why there are several satellite temperature trends that are published - each uses its own algorithms to estimate temperature. As discussed in the Global Cooling page, GISS, HadCRU, RSS, and UAH represent the four organizations that publish online the global average temperature estimates. All four of these sets show that the planet was warmer between 1998 and 2008 than the previous decade so the assertion that there has been no warming since 2001 is incorrect. In the past few years the rate of warming has decreased but not the temperature. There has been no global cooling! One cannot cherry-pick a few years to try to prove a century's worth of rising temperatures is not occurring. The increased temperature trend since the 1880s is well-documented even though there have been some cooler years in that trend.
Here is a more technical analysis of why global temperatures have not "cooled since 1998" nor "cooled since 2001" as some global warming critics claim: Embarrassing Questions from the Open Mind Blog.
Another patently false statement. For a detailed description of how carbon dioxide heats the atmosphere please visit Realclimate.org's: A Saturated Gassy Argument. Today's climate is well explained by the measured increases in greenhouse gases.
Because The Skeptic's Handbook contains significant errors in its statements, one must conclude:
Either way, The Skeptic's Handbook is NOT a reliable source for discussing climate change. Increases in greenhouse gases from human activities can easily account for the increased trend in global temperatures over the past century. As mentioned often in this site, there are no other known mechanisms that can account for this unprecedented global warming on such a short time scale. Joanne Nova suggests that "something else must have caused it" but she never explains what this might be...because she cannot!
Joanne Nova ends The Skeptic's Handbook with the following statement which reveals the true motivation of her document: "An emissions trading scheme is a bad solution to a problem that's gone, fighting a cause that never was ..." Doesn't this sound like it comes from the fossil fuel industry?
Competitive Enterprise Institute:
DeSmog Blog: http://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/1636
Media Matters: http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute/funders
Looking at the documented major funders of the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
Documented Total for Exxon Mobil, Scaife, and Koch: $5,250,000
Sources of wealth:
See My Blog Post on Fraser Institute
DeSmog Blog: http://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/1644
Independent Summary for Policymakers (ISPM)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Independent_Summary_for_Policymakers - Sourcewatch's description of the flaws with this document
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/fraser-institute-fires-off-a-damp-squib/ - Realclimate's description of the flaws with this document
Understanding Climate Change - A shortened version of the ISPM.
Understanding Climate Change: Lesson Plans for the Classroom - Lesson plans based on the documents above that were distributed to thousands of school children across Canada and the U.S. They have no shame! See also: Fraser Institute pitching to students in latest attempt to cloud global warming evidence by DeSmog Blog.
An excellent blog post by Deep Climate about the Fraser Institute and its main funder, Michael Chernoff, can be located at: Understanding climate with the Fraser Institute and Michael Chernoff
George C. Marshall Institute:
DeSmog Blog: http://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/1660
Global Climate Coalition:
Andrew Revkin writes about the Global Climate Coalition in an April 2009 article:
Its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted. "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 experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.
The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups.
Exxonsecrets' List of Organizations Funded by ExxonMobil
Timothy Chase, a frequent poster on various climate blogs, has researched the various funding sources for organizations mentioned above and has graciously allowed me to post his results here. Total grants from various foundations to organizations that are also funded by Exxon:
Aggregated Grants of Scaife Foundations
Includes: Scaife Family Foundation, Carthage Foundation, Allegheny Foundation and Sara Scaife Foundation
For the period from 1985 to 2006:
1. A Total of 41 organizations found in the Exxon Secrets database where each organization received at least $100,000.
2. Number of individuals belonging to multiple organizations according to the database: 148.
3. The total grants for all causes by Scaife Foundations for this period was $471,475,733 according to Media Transparency. Looking only at organizations that received $100,000 or more over this period that were in the Exxon Secrets database yields $121,418,540. As such, while only 41 of the 434 organizations that received total grant amounts of at least $100,000 were in the Exxon Secrets database, thus constituting only 9.45% of the 434 organizations, 27.75% of the grant money went to organizations that are in the Exxon Secrets database.
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.
27 organizations on the Exxon list have received $100,000 or more from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation from 1985-2005, with 95 individuals belonging to 2 or more of those organizations. The grand total given by the foundation to these 27 organizations for this period is $64,707,196.
Aggregated Grants from the Charles G. Koch, David H. Koch, and Claude R. Lambe Foundations
20 organizations on the Exxon list have received $100,000 or more from the Koch/Lambe foundations from 1986-2004. Total number of individuals belonging to 2 or more of these organizations in the Exxon Secrets DB is 77. Total given: $36,815,538.
Coors Castle Rock Foundation
18 organizations on the Exxon list having received $100,000 or more from the Castle Rock foundation from 1995-2006. A total of 69 individuals on the Exxon list that belong to 2 or more of these organizations. Total given $7,068,760.
The total funding from these sets of foundations going to organizations that also receive funding from Exxon and have been identified as part of the Exxon disinformation network: $230,010,034
Four sets of foundations (Scaife, Bradley, Koch and Coors) have given over $262,146,651 to disinformation organizations that attack climate science which are also funded by Exxon.
Timothy Chase also made available the lists of the organizations themselves and of the amounts that they received from each set of foundations, and links to the Web pages (Media Matters “Transparency,” Exxon Secrets, SourceWatch) for virtually all of the information. The list can be viewed here.
Notorious Industry-Funded Individuals
The people listed below include a very small sample of those individuals who for political and economic reasons are misleading the general public and our policy-makers. For a more complete list please see the Union of Concerned Scientists list near the top of this Web page. One can also look at the names listed at DeSmog Blog's people directory at: http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/5 or just type a name into the search box on Exxonsecrets or SourceWatch.
S. Fred Singer:
DeSmog Blog: http://www.desmogblog.com/people/fred-singer
|Peter Sinclair's Climate Crock of the Week: That 1500 Year Thing
Climate Deniers S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery make their living by confusing and obfuscating the science of climate change. Their latest book, "Unstoppable Global Warming every 1500 Years", is a compendium of vintage as well as cutting edge climate crocks. This video shows who they are and how they are bamboozling their audience.
Dr. Frederick Seitz:
DeSmog Blog: http://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/1680
DeSmog Blog: http://www.desmogblog.com/people/tim-ball
Lord Christopher Monckton:
DeSmog Blog: http://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/1638
|Dr. John Abraham's dismantling of Lord Mockton's many errors, misrepresentations, and outright lies.|
|Peter Sinclair's Climate Crock of the Week: Debunking Lord Monckton Part 1
Watch this video to learn more about climate deniers as their number one spokesman.
|Peter Sinclair's Climate Crock of the Week: Debunking Lord Monckton Part 2
Sinclair continues to show why Monckton should have no credbility whatsoever.
|Dr. Barry Bickmore's Climate Consensus: A Cautionary Tale, Part 1/2
Dr. Bickmore shows how Monckton makes up data.
DeSmog Blog: http://www.desmogblog.com/people/steve-milloy
Senator James Inhofe:
DeSmog Blog: http://www.desmogblog.com/people/jim-inhofe
Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change
According to Wikipedia (2008) the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change is a statement made in 1995, seeking to refute the claim there is a scientific consensus on the global warming issue. It was issued in an updated form 1997 and revised in 2005, claimed to have been signed by 80 scientists and 25 television news meteorologists while the posting of 33 additional signatories is pending verification that those 33 additional scientists still agree with the statement.
The declaration, which opposes the global warming hypothesis and the Kyoto Protocol, has appeared in two versions, both penned by Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).
Global warming skeptics have hailed the declarations as a critical scientific turning point. Critics claim they were fraudulent publicity stunts and have questioned both the authenticity of the signatures and the credentials of the verifiable signers.
The 1995 declaration asserts: "There does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever." The latter statement was broadly accurate at the time, but with additional data and correction of errors, all analyses of satellite temperature measurements now show statistically-significant warming.
The declaration also criticized the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, saying: "Energy is essential for all economic growth, and fossil fuels provide today's principal global energy source. In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For this reason, we consider 'carbon taxes' and other drastic control policies ... to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."
Although the key data on which the Leipzig declaration relied has been invalidated by subsequent research, and much new evidence has accumulated, the declaration continues to be cited, along with the Oregon Petition (see below) as evidence of the current views of scientists on climate change. Moreover, the organizers have not changed their stated position of rejecting anthropogenic global warming. (Wikipedia, 2008)
For more information please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration
Oregon Petition/Petition Project:
"Over 31,000 scientists reject global warming!" This statement is referring to The Petition Project, formerly known as the Oregon Petition. The petition is fraudulent nonsense.
Beginning in 1998 and continuing today, a petition has been circulated that asks people to sign a statement indicating that global warming is beneficial to mankind and that humans are not responsible for the current climate change observed today. The petition, organized by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (OISM), includes a letter of support from Frederick Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, along with a Wall Street Journal editorial and an article from The Journal of Physicians and Surgeons. This journal is not a peer-reviewed journal for climate science nor any other atmosphere-related field. In essence, anything published in this journal that relates to climate science must be considered "questionable" at best. The article was styled so that it appears with the exact same format, type, and font as those of the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Sciences released the following statement regarding the OISM Petition:"The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. OISM has refused to release information on the number of mailings it made.
As of October 2007, the petition project website includes an article by Arthur Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon, published in 2007 in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons - not a climate related journal in any sense.
Neither of the Robinsons has published any articles in climate science journals. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist, has close ties to ExxonMobil funded front groups. Of course, no serious scientist would ever put his/her name on a "faked journal."
The science in this article is filled with errors and misleading statements. These errors are well-documented by Michael MacCracken, Ph.D. (Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs at the Climate Institute), by Realclimate.org, and others.
Because this petition is still being circulated today, one would think that the OISM would support their dubious claims by including a recent article from a peer-reviewed climate-related publication. Because OISM has not done so, it speaks volumes to these unfounded claims. This petition can only be considered as fraud and any person who refers to this petition to bolster their claims should immediately be considered not credible.
|Peter Sinclair's Climate Crock of the Week: The Great Petition Fraud
Watch this video to learn more about the Oregon Petition.
For more information please see: Skeptical Science: Scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
The Great Global Warming Swindle:
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a documentary film that argues against the scientific consensus that global warming is "very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations". The film, made by British television producer Martin Durkin, showcases scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who are skeptical about the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming. The program's publicity materials assert that man-made global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times." TGGWS (2009)
Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming skeptics, it was criticized heavily by many scientific organizations and individual scientists (including two of the film's contributors). The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Channel 4 and Wag TV (the production company) accepted some of the criticism, correcting a few errors in subsequent releases. However according to Bob Ward (former spokesman for the Royal Society), this still left five out of seven of the errors and misleading arguments which had been previously attacked by him and 36 other scientists in an open letter. TGGWS (2009)
As TGGWS (2009) documents, the film has been heavily criticized by experts in the field and by several scientists that were tricked into appearing in the movie. Most of the claims made in this film, including the cosmic ray hypothesis, have been seriously questioned or thoroughly debunked. The Great Global Warming Swindle is now available on DVD, has been seen by millions and is also available on YouTube where it has quite a following.
For more information please see The Great Global Warming Swindle Wiki.
|Peter Sinclair's Climate Crock of the Week: The Big Swindle Movie
Watch this video to learn more about the movie and its many flaws.
The Massive Conspiracy Argument:
In his 2004 science fiction novel, State of Fear, the late Michael Crichton describes a world where global warming is a hoax perpetuated by a secretive group of eco-terrorists that kill any scientist that reveals himself to be a global warming skeptic. Of course, the book is FICTION but the average reader, without knowing the science of climate change, is left believing that there may be a massive conspiracy to promote global warming for profit's sake.
More disturbingly, this absurd belief is being promoted by television (ex. The Great Global Warming Swindle), right-wing ideologues such as Rush Limbaugh, fossil-fuel industry-backed organizations such as The Heartland Institute, and the NIPCC document among others.
|Peter Sinclair's Climate Crock of the Week: Smacking the Hack Attack
Climate deniers have been making a lot of noise about a set of stolen emails from one of the world's leading climate centers, The Universtiy of East Anglia. The spin they're putting out is that the emails reveal what they always suspected, an evil global conspiracy.
|Peter Sinclair's Climate Crock of the Week: Smacking the Hack Attack Part 2
13 years of emails, and this is the best they can do? More of the REAL story behind the non-story.
Some of the statements appearing in the NIPCC (2008) include:
One can simply play devil's advocate to quickly dismiss these claims. If the IPCC truly misrepresented the facts due to politics one must consider the following:
Any reasonable person who carefully considers all the evidence must conclude that there is no conspiracy nor any real incentive to delude billions of people about climate change. To the contrary, there is a large financial incentive for the fossil fuel industry to promote the massive conspiracy argument because to combat climate change humans must reduce the use of fossil fuels.
More information about the unfounded notion that there is a global warming hoax can be found at Global Warming Conspiracy Theory Wiki.
Cory S. Powell, Editor-in-Chief of Discover magazine, interviewed four top climate scientists in an article titled The Big Heat (2009). One of these scientists is Ken Caldeira who is a professor at Stanford and a staff member of global ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Caldeira has studied issues such as ocean acidification, intentional intervention in climate systems, mass-extinction events, and the scale of change needed to address the current carbon-driven climate problems. Ken Caldeira summarizes the culture of true scientists with the following statement:There was a climate change contrarian who testified before the Senate last week. He made the claim that climate scientists were some kind of club and they all made money by somehow supporting each other's findings. The reality of science is that a scientific career is made by showing that all of the people around you believe something that's not true. If a scientist could provide evidence that the climate theory is incorrect and that global warming is not a product of human activities, he or she would be held up as the Darwin or Einstein of climate science. We're highly incentivized to show that all our colleagues are wrong. If we could come up with good evidence that they're wrong, we would be out there publishing it. The evidence just doesn't exist.
So we are left with three possible conclusions:
Common sense and a sense of probability should lead one to the likely correct choice above. The first person to show proof of what IS causing the modern day global warming and that it is not AGW is likely to be the next Nobel science winner.
Climate Change IS a Duck:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then we need to call it a duck. Those that knowingly mislead the public about global warming are happy to tell us that it is most certainly not a duck. Please read The Duck for a brilliant allegory.
Many of the "contrarian arguments" one might run across are scientifically debunked at:
Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism
Coby Beck's: How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic
RealClimate.org's FAQ page: Responses to common contrarian arguments
Scott A. Mandia
Professor - Physical Sciences
T-202 Smithtown Sciences Bldg.
533 College Rd.
Selden, NY 11784
Last Updated: 11/7/18