Climate change deniers like to say that the science behind climate change is not ‘settled science’ and that there is no consensus among scientists. These, of course, are false statements. The fact is, 97% of all climate scientists agree that climate change is real and is due to manmade emissions. Here is an excellent report on the very subject. The science is very real and scientist who work in this field of study are in overwhelming agreement.
Deniers also reject the claim that they are funded by the fossil fuel industry to undermine the valid science and to inject doubt into the minds of the public. Below is a list of some of the denier sources and individuals receiving those funds. The challenge to me was to produce documents that could used in the event I received a subpoena in a slander/libel lawsuit. I have indicated my sources of information and they satisfy that requirement. The information provided here has been gleaned from tax documents, SEC filings, statements by the individuals themselves, court papers and articles vetted by major news media (also one of the standards demanded by the denier).
So, I’ll say it to be perfectly clear:
Some organizations in the fossil fuel industry are funding climate change deniers for the purpose of undermining climate change science.
If someone would like to sue me for slander/libel, then the documents below would be enough to get the case thrown out of court. Of course, the deniers will claim otherwise, but they live in a fantasy world that does not accept reality.
The denier disinformation campaign is very well funded and very well organized. A study done at Drexel University found 140 foundations provided $558 million to nearly 100 climate change organizations between 2003 and 2010. That comes out to an average of almost $70 million per year. That is some serious money and you don’t provide that kind of funding just to have a tax-write off. This funding is done for a purpose. What I find very telling is the fact that traceable donations have disappeared and been replaced with untraceable donations to third-party proxies. In fact, one climate change denial proxy, Donors Trust (along with the associated Donors Capital) accounts for fully 25% of all climate change denier funding. Why are they hiding their donations? Are they afraid that people would question their motives?
Many of the organizations providing funding for climate change denial are among the world’s worst emitters of greenhouse gases. The original paper on sources of greenhouse gases can be found here. This list represents who stands to lose the most if we do something about the problem. In other words, people making a bunch of money hurting the rest of us are convincing millions of people that we shouldn’t do anything about the problem. And, millions of people simply take out their checkbook and agree with them.
Here are some of the funding organizations and funding receivers. This list is not even close to being exhaustive, it is here merely to illustrate the debt of the problem.
ChevronTexaco – Provides funding to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Source: Think Progress
ExxonMobil – Exxon reports show donations to the Heartland Institute between 1998 and 2007 of $676,500. Exxon donated more than $28 million to the American Enterprise Institute (see below). Along with the Marshall Institute and Fred Singer’s group, they proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty. Exxon was called out by a number of senators for giving over $19 million to fund groups “producing very questionable data” on climate change. Studies have found Exxon to have been “heavily involved” in denier funding between 2003 and 2008 and donated more than $16 million during that time. Exxon has since changed and says it no longer gives to climate denier organizations and there has been no publicly traceable denier funding from Exxon since 2008. There are reports it continued to provide denier funding through at least 2011. However, there are still proxies that Exxon donates to, so it is not possible to verify it has stopped all funding.
Source: Greenpeace USA, Newsweek, Scientific American, The Guardian , Huffington Post
BP – Provides funding to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Source: Think Progress
Shell – Provides funding to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Source: Think Progress
Koch Brothers – The Koch brothers and their interrelated corporations and foundations have been responsible for millions of dollars in donations to denial organizations, including the Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute and Heritage Foundation. They have also had to pay tens of millions of dollars in fines and hundreds of millions of dollars in clean-up costs as a result of violating environmental safety guards. They have been very critical of environmental safety laws, both on the books and proposed. Between 2005 and 2011 the Kochs would provide over $43 million to denier organizations, more than three times what Exxon provided during the same time period. The Kochs have become the largest single source of funds for denier organizations. They provide funding to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Source: Huffington Post, Think Progress
Peabody Energy -Peabody is the world’s largest private-sector supplier of coal and sold more than 246 million tons of coal in 2010. Peabody supports American Legislative Exchange Council and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, both very active climate change denial organizations.
Source: Polluter Watch, SourceWatch
Chrysler – Chrysler donated $105,000 to the Heartland Institute between 2004 and 2006.
Source: Huffington Post
General Motors – GM donated $165,000 to the Heartland Institute between 2004 and 2010. They donated $95,000 to the Cato Institute between 2003 and 2009.
Source: Huffington Post
Western Fuels Association – Supports the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a major climate change denier organization.
Source: The Nation
And, take a look at who is getting the funding. The people and institutes here are among the most notorious of the climate change deniers or proxies.
Donors Trust – According to IRS tax returns, between 2002 and 2010, Donors Trust provided over $90 million in funding ($90,989,710 to be exact) to 84 groups that deny the scientific realities of climate change. Between 2004 and 2010, the partner group Donors Capital Fund, provided more than $28 million in funding ($28,490,862) to 75 groups that deny the scientific realities of climate change. They receive their funds from conservative sources, including the Koch Brothers, Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. Charles Koch donated $2 million in 2010 alone.
Source: DeSmogBlog, Mother Jones, Huffington Post,
The Heartland Institute – Possibly the organization most guilty of false-science and efforts to undermine valid climate science. The Heartland Institute once compared climate scientists to terrorists, including the Unabomber, Charles Manson, Osama bin Laden and Fidel Castro. They stated, “the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” Heartland’s president, Joseph Bast, has called Heartland “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made global warming.” Several internal documents were obtained by Peter Gleick and posted online. These documents revealed they were receiving funding from the fossil fuel industry and were engaged in campaigns to undermine climate science with school-based programs. Heartland demanded Gleick be charged and threatened lawsuits against anyone reposting the documents or even discussing them (I guess I’m in trouble). They are one of the organizations involved in the intimidation campaign against climate researcher Michael Mann. Heartland was involved in the ClimateGate campaign where the computer servers at East Anglia were illegally hacked and selected emails were stolen. These emails were then cherry-picked to take quotes out of context in an effort to make it look as if the scientists were faking their research. The scientists were all cleared of any wrong-doing by several independent panels, but Heartland continues to cite the emails in a continuing effort to discredit the scientists. They have engaged in other campaigns to attack, intimidate and discredit climate scientists (when you can’t refute the science, destroy the scientists). they host an annual conference of climate change contrarians. Heartland has also been involved with efforts to convince people there is no danger in second-hand smoke. In addition to their internal documents showing they receive funding from the fossil fuel industry, Exxon documents show they donated $676,500 to Heartland since 1998. See the above entry about Donors Trust, which has donated money to Heartland.
According to various data bases and their tax documents, some of their funding includes: American Petroleum Institute ($25,000, 2008), Chrysler Foundation ($105,000, 2004-06), Donors Capital Fund ($25.6 million, 2005-11), Donors Trust ($554,000, 2008-10), ExxonMobil ($531,500, 2001-06), General Motors Foundation ($165,000, 2004-10) and Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($25,000, 2011).
Source: Washington Post, The Heartland Institute, Forbes, The Guardian, Forbes again, Watching the Deniers, More Forbes , ExxonSecrets, Huffington Post, More Huffington Post, Union of Concerned Scientists
The American Petroleum Institute (API) – The API has long held the position that any effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions is a ‘tax on our industry’ and has fought behind the scenes to undermine any effort to enact legislation that might hurt the fossil fuel industry. Internal memos have shown that it funds and provides staffing for campaigns against legislation, then denies any involvement. API says that it does not consider climate change legislation to be an energy tax, but then runs numerous ads calling any such legislation an ‘energy tax.’ Along with other groups, API funded reports for Congress “whose entire purpose was to confuse people on the science of global warming.” Among other contributors, AEI received more than $1.9 million from Exxon.
Source: DeSmogBlog, Newsweek
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) – ALEC is an extremist organization that, among other things, promotes climate change denial and is funded by the oil and gas industry. It is extremely weird – and dangerous. Read the first-hand account from Chris Taylor, a state representative from Wisconsin. ALEC denies that global warming is causing glaciers to retreat or sea level to rise. Not only does ALEC deny the threat of climate change, they even argue that “substantial global warming is likely to be of benefit to the United States”.
Source: The Progressive, Climate Progress
Richard Lindzen – He always claimed to not take any funding from the fossil fuel industry, but finally admitted to taking over $10,000 per year from the fossil fuel industry plus consulting fees and travel expenses. He receives $2,500 per day in consulting fees. He was a court expert witness for the Western Fuels Association.
Source: DeSmogBlog, SourceWatch, Weather Underground
Patrick Michaels – Michaels served as an expert court witness on behalf of the Western Fuels Association. This, and other actions, led the Minnesota Star to write about him in an editorial stating he was a fossil-fuel industry funded scientist. He won a court case against them, but then he admitted in 1995 that he had received over $165,000 from the fossil fuel industry. He now refuses to reveal any of his source of funds. ABC reported he had received $100,000 from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association. He also acknowledged on CNN that 40 percent of his funding comes from the oil industry. He was a witness in a lawsuit but withdrew when it became apparent he would have to reveal his funding sources. He was paid by the coal industry to write the World Climate Report, in which he regularly attempted to discredit climate science.
Source: ThinkProgress, Wikipedia, Mother Jones, DeSmogBlog, Newsweek, Huffington Post
The Cato Institute: A long-time climate denial organization, Patrick Michaels (see above) heads their Center for the Study of Science. He admitted that he receives 40% of his funding from the fossil fuel industry. The Cato Institute received $110,000 from ExxonMobil between 2001and 2006, $95,000 from General Motors from 2003 to 2009, and $2.79 million from the three main Koch family funds from 2001 to 2010.
Competitive Enterprise Institute – According to various data bases and their tax documents, some of their funding includes: American Petroleum Institute ($25,000, 2009), Donors Capital Fund ($607,280, 2007-11), Donors Trust ($581,000, 2002-11), ExxonMobil ($1.69 million, 2001-05), General Motors Foundation ($245,000, 2003-08), Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($24,100, 2009) and Charles Koch’s Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation ($222,620, 2002-11).
Source: Union of Concerned Scientists
James Inhofe – The senior senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe is a die-hard critic of climate change science. He has called global warming the ‘greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” At the same time, the senator is one of the largest receivers of fossil fuel industry campaign funds. Over his career, he has received over $3,250,000 from the energy sector, including $1,600,000 from the oil and gas industry. That total included over $95,000 from the Koch Brothers. He famously used outdated data, even though it had been proven false, to make the claim that there was no scientific evidence of global warming.
Source: OpenSecrets, The Guardian, Newsweek
Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) – The NIPCC is a project funded by the Heartland Institute with the objective of presenting alternative science. The NIPCC differs from the UN’s IPCC in several important ways, including (thanks to Skeptical Science):
- Its purpose is not to give clarity on climate science, as the IPCC does, but to critique the IPCC, according to the Heartland leaked documents
- The scientists working for the NIPCC get paid; the IPCC scientists don’t
- The NIPCC report only critiques papers published by deniers, whereas the IPCC critiques all papers, including those published by deniers.
The Heartland Institute pays its scientists to disregard most climate science research and focus exclusively on the few “skeptic” studies which support their very narrow focus on poking holes in the IPCC report. One document in the Heartland leaks outlined the list of deniers being paid for their work on the NIPCC, including Craig Idso and Fred Singer.
Source: Greenpeace, Skeptical Science
S. Fred Singer – A long time climate change denier, Singer has been very active as a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry. He makes frequent appearances before government panels at the state and federal level with testimony contrary to the prevailing science. Singer is famous for claiming global warming was not real, then, when he was caught in the lie, changed his claim to saying that climate science community was a cabal that was silencing any scientist that disagreed with the ‘alarmist’ reports. Singer receives $5000 per month plus expenses from the Heartland Institute.
Source: Newsweek, The Heartland Institute
Craig Idso -Idso heads the denial organization known as the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. He is also associated with the Heartland Institute, which pays him $11,600 per month.
Source: The Heartland Institute, More Heartland Institute
Tom Donelson is a climate change denier. He is also a real estate agent in Iowa (according to his link) and apparently thinks he knows more about climate change than all of the climate scientists in the world combined. I have been exchanging some comments with him lately and they are so lame that it is unbelievable that anyone would believe them. You can read all of them here. Unfortunately, there are those that do. But, in his comments were some very subtle lies. I bring this up, not because I want to discredit Mr. Donelson (he has no credibility to begin with), but to illustrate how deniers lie to people.
Here is one such exchange. Read it closely to see if you can find the lie:
You can’t even make the statement that this is the hottest century over the past two thousands years stick and there are 700 researchers who agree with me. So the real denier is you, have fun selling your book. I will look forward to see it under fiction
Name one that isn’t associated with the Heartland Institute.Christopher Keating Here is one lists of references to chew on. Of course every scientists who disagree with you is on the take. http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/scientists.php.
Bottom line, I have more than enough references to show I am right that there has been climate change over the pasts 2000 years, past 10,000 years and yes even the last 800,000 years. Since you can’t even get the history of climate change right, the readers of this blog should not take you that seriously. And I am the snake oil salesman?Institutes involved:http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/institutions.phpOf
Give up? That is how good they are. It is hard to see and I confess I missed it at first.
In his first comment above, Mr. Donelson states, “there are 700 researchers who agree with me.” Then, he gives a link to the CO2 Science website, one of the worst denier organizations out there. If you go to the link Donelson provides you find a page entitled, “List of Scientists Whose Work We Cite”.
I think we can all agree that citing someone’s published work is not the same as saying they ‘agree’ with you. For instance, I could write a paper talking about how bad the Nazis were for Germany and cite Mein Kampf somewhere in the paper. That does not mean Hitler agrees with me.
The fact that Hitler is dead is relevant. I looked up a bunch of these scientists and found that many of them have been dead for quite some time. In fact, it appears some of them died before CO2 Science was ever around. It would be virtually impossible for these individuals to agree with them.
CO2 Science does not make the claim that these scientist agree with them, they just say they cite their work. The claim of agreement is purely on Mr. Donelson. However, I bet if I contacted these individuals (at least the ones that are still alive) and told them that a denier is telling people they agree with him on his views on climate change that they would be pretty surprised.
Look at the last comment where he says, “I have more than enough references to show I am right that there has been climate change over the pasts (sic) 2000 years, past 10,000 years and yes even the last 800,000 years.” This is the second lie Mr. Donelson says here.
The claim was never that there has been no naturally occurring climate change. Mr. Donelson changed the claim in mid-argument. The original claim by Donelson was “when for the past ten of thousands of years we have seen far more extreme temperature ensueing?” I responded that temperatures today are the hottest in the last 10,000 years. He then stated, “You can’t even make the statement that this is the hottest century over the past two thousands years stick.”
So, in summary, I said this is the hottest it has been for 10,000 years and he changed it to climate variability over the last 800,000 years. False argument. He did not respond to my claim, instead he substituted another to make it appear that I was wrong. The irony is that if Mr. Donelson had stuck to the facts he would have shown my statement, as I stated it, was wrong. It was actually warmer than today during the middle-Halocene period that occurred between 7500 and 5000 years ago.Here is a very good statement of the facts, from the National Climatic Data Center. So, if he hadn’t turned it into a lie, he would have scored some points.
However, present day temperatures are clearly warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period, making today’s temperature record the hottest for the last 2000 years, at least. The IPCC report states,
The uncertainty associated with present palaeoclimate estimates of NH mean temperatures is significant, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce (Mann et al., 1999; Briffa and Osborn, 2002; Cook et al., 2004a). However, Figure 6.10 shows that the warmest period prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980.
So, the Medieval Warm Period is not as warm as the period of 1961-1990, and significantly cooler than the temperatures recorded after 1980. But, the bigger issue is, so what? Discussions about naturally occurring climate change in the past have no bearing on the climatic issues of today. This quote from Richard Alley says it very well:
“Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred.”
So, Mr. Donelson inserted another implied lie into the argument, namely that we don’t need to worry about today’s warming because natural climate change occurred in the past, therefore this warming is just another natural cycle. What if I said it this way:
Pneumonia kills people
Gunshot wounds kill people
Pneumonia is a naturally occurring disease
Therefore, gunshot wounds are a naturally occurring disease
It’s pretty obvious when you put it that way. But, Mr. Donelson, and other climate change deniers, want you to believe that naturally occurring climate cycles in the past mean we have done nothing to the environment of today. Clearly, a false argument and, since they know it is a false argument (they have been told enough times), that makes it a lie when they continue to say it.
And, that is how the deniers operate.
I have become a point of interest for Russell Cook of the Heartland Institute. If you are not familiar with this gem of a human being, don’t be disappointed. His job description with the Institute includes the statement (from his webpage) “He specializes in research of the origins of accusations leveled at skeptics and the associations of people surrounding it, most notably anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan.”
I find it interesting that he “specializes” in this area of work. From my perspective, this makes Cook the Gestapo of the Heartland Institute with the job of hunting down dissenting opinions and persecuting those responsible. Again, that is just from my perspective.
Now, he has apparently set his sights on me. That, in itself, is pretty amazing. Let’s be honest about my blog, this is not one of the top climate change blogs out there. Truth be told, it is probably not even in the top few hundred blogs. So, why does Mr. Cook find it necessary to come after me?
Now, you may ask, just how is it that I feel he is targeting me? He has engaged in a series of comments on my blog, all of which I have published verbatim without any kind of editing on my part. You can read all of his comments and my responses here. These comments appear to be motivated by a posting I made pointing out how the people in control of the NIPCC reports are all tools of the fossil fuel industry, a claim he finds objectionable. I will make a more detailed posting about this claim, but I want to devote this posting to Mr. Cook and his actions, which he supposedly committed as part of his job at the Heartland Institute.
Mr Cook began by demanding I produce clandestine information to support my claim (“(full context document scans, undercover video/audio transcripts, leaked emails, money-transfer receipts, etc.)”) I referred to some documents that are available as an example that the documentation is there for anyone to see. He scoffed at this and responded, “If you had to answer a court subpoena as a defense witness supporting people accused of committing libel/slander against skeptic climate scientists, is that material from ExxonSecrets all you’d have to bring with you?”
Whoa! Wait a minute! Suddenly, we are talking lawsuits, subpoenas and libel/slander. Why? What was the purpose here? None of those topics were in anyway included in my postings or previous comments. I do not for an instant, believe they came out of thin air. It is only reasonable to believe there was a motive behind those comments.
Did he directly threaten me with such a lawsuit? No, he didn’t. Was this an attempt to intimidate me? It most certainly was. There can be one, and only one, reason why Mr. Cook would make a comment like that, to make sure I understood that such a lawsuit was a possibility. The only possible motivation I can see is he wanted to make sure I understood the Heartland Institute is upset with my comments and if I continue, they will do something about it.
When I asked him if he was threatening me with a lawsuit, he responded,
I respectfully suggest you show your verbatim blog post and our comments to the most disinterested person you can find and ask him or her – without any leading pointers on your part – whether my first bit about the wisdom of you supporting your accusation with proof is threatening or intimidation, and whether my prior comment is any indication at all of a pending lawsuit against you. If they say “No” and then look at you sorta funny, that might be an indication that you might want to more carefully re-read my comments.
I have read Mr. Cook’s comments very carefully and there is still no alternative explanation I can come up with. What is very telling is his comment “without any leading pointers on your part”. To remove anything I might say about it is just plain silly, since the comments were directed at me and for my consumption. Let me give you an example, suppose someone says Person A is pointing a gun at Person B, and leaves out any context. What is your conclusion? You can’t really reach one because you don’t know what the story. Is Person A robbing Person B? Is Person A a police officer arresting Person B? Is Person A unlawfully in the Person B’s house in the middle of the night? Is Person B unlawfully in Person A’s house in the middle of the night? Are they playing laser tag or paintball? All very different and you cannot reach a logical conclusion without the context of the situation.
That, of course, is exactly what Mr. Cook wants. And, the deniers are extremely skilled at this. Many of their claims consists of taking selected quotes out of context and putting them into a new context to make them seem like something else. Now, if you are suspicious that I have done this to Mr. Cook, you may read all of his comments verbatim. Again, they can be found here.
One last point, Mr. Cook devoted over 1500 words (1566, according to Microsoft Word) to my blog, once again, a minor blog. You would think he would have bigger fish to fry. Or, maybe its because he thinks a small fry like me can be intimidated. If so, he greatly missed the mark. I was a career analyst in Navy Intelligence, involved with fighting some of the nastiest people on the face of the planet. I have dealt with very nasty people in my private life and do not get intimidated very easily.
As for a slander/libel lawsuit, the burden of proof is on them and the truth is a positive and absolute defense. If anyone would like to sue me for slander/libel because I said certain people receive funding from the fossil fuel industry, the first thing I will do is to subpoena the financial records of everyone involved. And, we know for a fact that the Heartland Institute does not want anyone to see their internal documents. Just look at their reaction when internal documents were leaked.
Again, this blog is not about debunking deniers or exposing all of their dirty laundry. If it comes up in course of my discussions, no problem. They are putting themselves in the public eye and are fair game. But, that isn’t my purpose here.
But, I want to make it clear that any effort on the part of Cook and the Heartland Institute to intimidate me failed. Unfortunately, as much as I want to devote myself to important things, I will need to address Cook and his comments in future posts.
I may be flattering myself, but I may have become a target of the Heartland Institute. If you are not familiar with this prize group, they are one of the prime climate change denier organizations. If they really are targeting me then I am truly flattered.
I made some comments on a blog posting by Tom Donelson on a website called Texas GOP Vote pointing out many flaws in his claims. What happened? I got challenged to a debate by James Rust of the Heartland Institute. He wanted each of us to put up $10,000 for a two hour debate. The winner got to donate the money to his choice of charity. I don’t work for charity, and I certainly am not going to be crazy enough to pay $10,000 for every chance to debate a denier. With their stack of money I would go broke very quickly. Instead, I invited him to take up my $10,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. So far, no submission from him. Funny, if it is as much of a sure thing as they claim, you would think it wouldn’t be any trouble for them to prove their point. Well, what do you expect, after all.
Then, today, I received a comment from Russell Cook, also of the Heartland Institute. It seemed to me to be some kind of intimidating message. He wanted me to reveal what proof I had of my statements and he wanted to know if I had all of this clandestine information on skeptics. Really weird. What I find very interesting is that the Heartland Institute has someone on their staff (payroll?) with (according to their webpage) a job description that includes this statement:
He specializes in research of the origins of accusations leveled at skeptics and the associations of people surrounding it, most notably anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan.
Really? They have a guy for the purpose of hunting down people that criticize deniers? And, he specializes in one author in particular? This really says an awful (emphasis on awful) lot about the Heartland Institute and Russell Cook.
Now, this blog is not about exposing deniers and criticizing them, no matter how much fun it is. This blog is to discuss the issues of global warming and highlight science on the subject. But, when something is put forward by groups of individuals it is reasonable to investigate the background of those individuals. It really is unfortunate that all the climate change deniers have what I would generously call questionable backgrounds. That is not the point of my postings, but it is relevant.
So, I have now been challenged by two individuals from the Heartland Institute within a matter of a couple of weeks. Why in the world do they feel so threatened by a little blogger like me? If this blog and my comments upset them so much, wait until they read my book. Boy, are they gonna be pissed!
So, I’ve been reading the reports posted by NIPCC and it has been very interesting. Not because I have seen anything worth reading, but because of the massive amount of writing they put out there. Unfortunately, from what I can tell so far, none of it is scientifically valid and you don’t have to go far to find out why. Check this list of Lead Authors/Editors from their latest report on Biological Impacts:
Idso, Craig D.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Idso, Sherwood B.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Carter, Robert M.
Institute of Public Affairs
Singer, S. Fred
Science and Environmental Policy Project
If you are at all familiar with the climate wars you will recognize at least two of those names. Craig Idso and Fred Singer are two of the most notorious climate change deniers and are funded by The Heartland Institute. To be thorough, let me say that The Heartland Institute is the same group of people that promoted that cigarette smoking was harmless and CFCs are harmless to the environment. Today, they are promoting the idea that second-hand smoke is harmless.
Sherwood Idso is Craig Idso’s father and the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a well-known climate change denier organization. Robert Carter rounds it out. He is also a well-known climate change misinformer.
When you look at the credentials and track-history of the people in charge of the report you really know everything needed about the report itself. This is a group of people who are professional climate change deniers and it is well documented that each of them has engaged in disinformation on the topic.
I will comment on some of the specifics of their report, but they have cranked out thousands of pages and it is not possible for me to spend the time needed to debunk it all. Which, of course, is their objective. But, I will do what I can.