Global warming skeptics send letter to Congress urging members not

[Saipan]

Wish I could have a discussion regarding climate destruction and disruption...but I can't - those that deny global warming are usually those doing well materially..

No evidence of that anywhere. Global-warming-sky-is-falling shysters are doing exceptionally well. Al Gore is making millions out of that racket. Some of the richest jumped on the "global warming" bandwagon.

From Richard Branson to George Soros......

[MiddleClassCentrist]

No evidence of that anywhere. Global-warming-sky-is-falling shysters are doing exceptionally well. Al Gore is making millions out of that racket. Some of the richest jumped on the "global warming" bandwagon.

From Richard Branson to George Soros......

This is an argument I don't understand.

There is clearly, without a doubt, more money in denying climate change at the current moment. The oil and manufacturing industries are the first to come to mind. The 'some of them also make money and are wealthy' is the argument spoon fed by those lobbyists and other representatives in the back pocket of big oil to protect their current market interests.

Now, I believe climate change is a huge threat to humans over time. We will need to change our ways over the next century as we run out of oil. But, the effect of a slightly warmer planet, I feel is exaggerated. Especially for those of us who have a bit too much winter.

[GostHacked]

Once science becomes political, science becomes a bi-personality. The science that supports the political position is fact, and the science that does not concur with or refutes the political position becomes junk.

That does seem to be the case.

[TimG]

There is clearly, without a doubt, more money in denying climate change at the current moment.

You are so wrong it is not funny. There are billions behind the anti-CO2 brigade between governments, NGOs and the UN. These billions are dedicated to pushing their agenda. In the mean time most fossil fuel companies are either jumping on the bandwagon or laying low because.

I realize that the anti-CO2 folks want to push the myth that they David fighting a Goliath but it is a myth. Big green is a huge force and should not be discounted.

[WIP]

You are so wrong it is not funny. There are billions behind the anti-CO2 brigade between governments, NGOs and the UN. These billions are dedicated to pushing their agenda. In the mean time most fossil fuel companies are either jumping on the bandwagon or laying low because.

I realize that the anti-CO2 folks want to push the myth that they David fighting a Goliath but it is a myth. Big green is a huge force and should not be discounted.

Show us some numbers! We all know how much money the big multinational oil companies earn, as they make up 7 of the world's 10 most profitable corporations, and have seeded millions of dollars through lobbyists, direct funding to universities, and the assorted think tanks and front groups that fund the small handful of deniers. Atmospheric CO2 levels will reach and surpass 400 ppm in just 3 or 4 more years, and that's one number that deniers can't fudge their way out of -- the only alternative is the totally ludicrous -- that somehow increased levels of greenhouse gases and water vapour in the atmosphere will have no effect on climate, or will be magically balanced out by some other unproven weather effect.

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for the smoking gun from the stolen CRU emails that you claimed would prove a global warming hoax, since no evidence of wrongdoing has been proven, and in recent news we also learned recently that the Wegman Study...mentioned again and again as if it was some sort of silver dagger for deniers, has been proven to be a fraud, and retracted by the journal that published it....that rush to publication is also being investigated, and both Wegman and the chairman of the journal that published his research under investigation for possible fraud and collusion. http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/16/208108/wegman-scandal-rocks-cornerstone-of-climate-denial/ The only evidence for cheating and fraud seems to be coming from the well-funded deniers who have taken the money to support a campaign of lies and disinformation.

So, what do you end up with to support your position that we should just sit back and keep burning fossil fuels and wait for the climate change issue to go away? This recent headline: Natural disaster refugees more than doubled to 42 million sure doesn't help the case to just sit back and do nothing...especially after considering that it doesn't include numbers for this year's disasters. Nor does the evidence that Arctic sea ice is melting faster than forecast in the IPCC reports. If the deniers are right about IPCC not being accurate, it appears to be only on the side that they are underestimating the rates of change.

[TimG]

Show us some numbers! We all know how much money the big multinational oil companies earn, as they make up 7 of the world's 10 most profitable corporations, and have seeded millions of dollars through lobbyists, direct funding to universities, and the assorted think tanks and front groups that fund the small handful of deniers.

Why don't you back up your assertions? The money that a few oil companies spend on libertarian think tanks which tackle many issues other than climate change is peanuts (less than a few million a year). To contrast, Al Gore alone started a fund with 300 million to lobby for climate change. The money that oil companies give to universities is usually no-strings attached. In fact, CRU of climate gate fame was funded by Shell. Are you going to accuse them of being in the pocket of oil companies?

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for the smoking gun from the stolen CRU emails that you claimed would prove a global warming hoax

I never claimed that. All I claimed is the emails show that senior climate scientists are obsessed with their view of reality and actively suppress dissenting views. The emails demonstrate, to all who have an open mind, that climate scientists are not saints whose words should be treated as gospel but are political activists who should be given no more credence than any other political activist.

Your claims about Wegman are total nonsense. What actually happened some improperly cited background material made it into a paper submitted by someone else long after the report to congress. None of this material changes the veracity of the Wegman report's contents and the most appropriate resolution would have involved issuing an errata with the correct citations. The trouble is the the Big Green machine is so desperate to hide the evidence of shenanigans that climate scientists engage in that they pressured the journal to withdrawal the paper.

In any case, your are nothing but the Reverend Camping of MLW. Any weather that happens will simply "confirm" that Armageddon is coming as far as you are concerned. You will never look at any evidence that cast doubt on your predetermined conclusions.

BTW: here is what Nature magazine has to say about weather climate links:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110516/full/473261a.html

The first major test of these changes will be towards the end of this year, with the release of a report assessing whether climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events. Despite much speculation, there is scant scientific evidence for such a link — particularly between climate warming, storm frequency and economic losses — and the report is expected to spark renewed controversy.

Of course, evidence does not matter to you since believing in climate armageddon is a question of faith for you - just like Camping.

[Oleg Bach]

No evidence of that anywhere. Global-warming-sky-is-falling shysters are doing exceptionally well. Al Gore is making millions out of that racket. Some of the richest jumped on the "global warming" bandwagon.

From Richard Branson to George Soros......

That's just it as far as buisness as usual in the world. It's either the gang busting and money making term like "war on terror" and or "bring them democracy" or for that matter "global warming", these are all catch phrase that spawn industry and profit for some - but not all. So I concure with your perception regarding global warming and the band wagon you mention. This non the less does not negate the fact that we humans are a dirty lot that toss our garbage into a flower arrangement - or dump a mattress in the park - as if nature were calling out - dump it here ! It's and issue of planetary house keeping. Those that want to grow fabulously rich never pick up after themselves - and this dirty way of doing buisness leaves a mess we will all drown in eventually - Call it global warming if you wish - or just call it shit up to our ears - AND eventually over our heads.

Take the BP oil gusher - the oil is still there and it with the assistance of chemicals lays on the bottom of the ocean. Garbage - you can only live with so much!

[WIP]

Why don't you back up your assertions? The money that a few oil companies spend on libertarian think tanks which tackle many issues other than climate change is peanuts (less than a few million a year).

Take a look at the more than 50 think tanks and special interest lobbyists compiled on the Exxonsecrets list. And that's just what's funded by one oil company! We're not including the Koch's or the aggressive denial lobbying done by the coal companies, and more than 50 lobby groups dedicated to a variety of conservative and libertarian causes, all promote climate change denial when the subject comes up. Down the list, there's one I never heard of before called "Doctors For Disaster Preparedness"....sounds like a good idea....but when I check their bio, most of their lobbying is on behalf of ramping up spending on military and homeland security...and global warming denial. The talking heads sponsored by these groups saturate the media, giving the impression to the public that there is a scientific case for doing nothing, and everything's fine on our present course.

It's worth noting that even without the money, there are enough rightwing clowns who would go out and deny climate change for free, because taking action invites government regulation of energy producers and international cooperation. The founders of the George Marshall Institute, Fred Seitz, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg, took on Ronald Reagan's proposed SDI initiative because they saw it as fighting Communism, and after Star Wars started flaming out, they turned their attention towards denying evidence from NASA and NOAA regarding global warming. In her book on the history of global warming denial, Naomi Oreskes says that there is no definitive evidence that the founders of the Marshall Institute were working on behalf of energy companies; they provided their support for ideological reasons....but the end result is the same damn thing!

To contrast, Al Gore alone started a fund with 300 million to lobby for climate change. The money that oil companies give to universities is usually no-strings attached. In fact, CRU of climate gate fame was funded by Shell. Are you going to accuse them of being in the pocket of oil companies?

I don't pay much attention to what Al Gore does or does not do, so feel free to provide the specifics of Gore's latest windfall. I never said there isn't money to be made on the other side. Some of the so called Green Entrepreneurs are just looking for ways to cash in on a transition to renewable energy sources, and would be just as happy to live on government grant money as actually design and build something of value....which is also what happens when governments pay for domestic oil development...if you recall the days back in the 80's when Dome Petroleum was making a living off of a 130% capital cost allowance on oil exploration, and never found one drop of oil that could be developed!

[TimG]

Take a look at the more than 50 think tanks and special interest lobbyists

Not one actual number in the list so it basically means squat.

I don't pay much attention to what Al Gore does or does not do, so feel free to provide the specifics of Gore's latest windfall.

Yet you obess about tiny amounts oil companies might be donating to think tanks. Thanks for proving that you are ignorant and your opinion on who funds what is worthless.

Anybody who actually pays attention knows that Big Green outspends the oil companies by a large margin. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/30/gore-to-unveil-300-millio_n_94155.html

Edited June 7, 2011 by TimG

[Oleg Bach]

The earth is so dirty that it will suffocate us eventually. There should be no skeptics in regards to global warming - which is really BAD WASTE MANAGEMENT.

[Michael Hardner]

Not one actual number in the list so it basically means squat.

Yet you obess about tiny amounts oil companies might be donating to think tanks. Thanks for proving that you are ignorant and your opinion on who funds what is worthless.

Anybody who actually pays attention knows that Big Green outspends the oil companies by a large margin. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/30/gore-to-unveil-300-millio_n_94155.html

I see a challenge here - and perhaps a new thread talking about the money on both sides. Your article is also a one-off listing of one initiative, by the way.

[TimG]

Your article is also a one-off listing of one initiative, by the way.

Do you have evidence that funds dedicated to opposing climate change policy come even close to that number? The moneys donated to think tanks are less than 1/10th of that sum and these think tanks frequently do things that have nothing to do with climate policy so support for them is not equivalent to dedciated 300 million propoganda campaign. Edited June 8, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Do you have evidence that funds dedicated to opposing climate change policy come even close to that number? The moneys donated to think tanks are less than 1/10th of that sum and these think tanks frequently do things that have nothing to do with climate policy so support for them is not equivalent to dedciated 300 million propoganda campaign.

I think it's clear from my last post that I don't. I have no idea, which is why I suggested that it would be a good topic for another thread. As for your post, it had numbers but still didn't capture the scope of the question: Green VS Business - who is spending more on lobbying ? If that's not the question, provide your own.

[Oleg Bach]

Mike...it's all about the imbalance that exists in economics...I have a friend that is an economist in The Congo...he has been there on and off for almost 17 years...the problem regarding global warming is waste management and fair trade....Companies want to exploit the area - but they do not want to be burdened with the cost of clean up....and they expect because they are dealing with a weaker society to get everything for free - This attitude is pervassive within western buisness - and as we see it is also now taking place in China etc. As long as we expect to have great profits and get something for nothing - we fail in the management of natural resourses - here and abroad. The rule should be workman like - clean up after yourself and there will be no global warming or climate distruction...but clean up is a concept based in diligence - and people are lazy and greedy.

[sunsettommy]

This is an argument I don't understand.

There is clearly, without a doubt, more money in denying climate change at the current moment. The oil and manufacturing industries are the first to come to mind. The 'some of them also make money and are wealthy' is the argument spoon fed by those lobbyists and other representatives in the back pocket of big oil to protect their current market interests.

Now, I believe climate change is a huge threat to humans over time. We will need to change our ways over the next century as we run out of oil. But, the effect of a slightly warmer planet, I feel is exaggerated. Especially for those of us who have a bit too much winter.

Prove it.

[sunsettommy]

The earth is so dirty that it will suffocate us eventually. There should be no skeptics in regards to global warming - which is really BAD WASTE MANAGEMENT.

LOL,

how about dropping the CO2 is pollution claptrap.And concentrate on REAL environmental concerns instead?

[WIP]

Not one actual number in the list so it basically means squat.

To you! Since you are totally in the tank for every rightwing cause, whether it's neoconservative military policy, denying climate change or believing every lying bullshit claim that came from the Japanese utility company - Tepco, and the Japanese Government that has mostly taken orders from them.

The significance of the lobby group funding is that hundreds of rightwing lobby groups all take the same sides on a range of political, economic and environment issues, and they in turn have hundreds of corporations - most notably the energy conglomerates, which generously support their comfortable lives of writing stupid editorials, and appearing for every MSM interview they can get in front of camera for! The buying and selling of influence is a complicated rats nest managed by third party advocacy groups, and it's set up that way for a reason -- it's the same strategy the tobacco companies used back in the 70's, but applied on a much larger scale.

But, the most serious and most dangerous buying of influence in America today is the corporate money from energy companies, drug companies and others, which are replacing government in the funding of state university research programs. It's all supposed to "arms length" with "no strings attached," but maybe it's just my natural cynicism that makes me call Bullshit when the U.A.H's environment research department, just happens to have the only climate research deniers on staff - Roy Spencer and John Christie, and appears to be the sole source of the denial side cited by clowns like Sen. James Inhofe as expert evidence. They are swimming in research grants, as are the universities designing new deep sea drilling technology for the oil companies and coal sequestration technology for the coal companies, and the ones working for the drug companies; while the public universities that have been doing basic research in a number of fields, are watching their funds dry up and having to scrap or consolidate departments.

Yet you obess about tiny amounts oil companies might be donating to think tanks. Thanks for proving that you are ignorant and your opinion on who funds what is worthless.

Anybody who actually pays attention knows that Big Green outspends the oil companies by a large margin. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/30/gore-to-unveil-300-millio_n_94155.html

No, on the contrary, you are the one who continually shows your ignorance by attacking anyone who just ask for links, and like Betsy, you don't seem to bother reading the stuff yourself! Otherwise you would have noticed that it plainly says "ad campaign" in the title, and mentions that this "bipartisan" ad campaign paid everyone from Al Sharpton to Pat Robertson to appear in the ads. This tells me two things:

1. advertising is extremely expensive and ineffective as a tool for sustained public influence. If he was going to spend 300 million, why not create think tanks and lobby groups to counter all of the rightwing propaganda we get bombarded with...so far, George Soros is the only one on the left who is funding a lobby on the left, and the obvious danger is that everything is tied to what George Soros wants and doesn't want to promote!

2. Al Gore is a waste of time, and if he actually did spend 300 million...remember the article only states that he's promised to spend that amount in total, not that he'll actually see it through...if we have to depend on Al Gore to bring about a real carbon tax or even a cap and trade scheme, it will never happen. The only thing that will happen is that Al Gore will try to promote himself as much as possible, and profit as much as possible from his green efforts...and that's why he is more important as a strawman for climate denial crackpots to fight against, than he is as a champion of saving humanity from environmental destruction. The actual climate research units around the world, which have published the research you and your oil company heroes are trying to deny, are mostly funded by government university research. As far as I am aware, the leading climate researchers like NASA's James Hansen, Phil Jones, or Michael Mann, are not billionaires or even millionaires! Unless you have proof to the contrary, they seem to be living the typical standard of living that fellow academics enjoy. The only thing you can prove is that there are people like Al Gore looking to cash in.....and as I said before, who gives a shit?

The final word is that your point that climate change gets more money than climate denial cannot be validated because there are billions of dollars involved in the rightwing buy-up of commercial media, and funding of rightwing think tanks and lobby groups. It's impossible to unravel what dollars go to climate change denial, and what goes to lobbying for more corporate and estate tax cuts, or fighting health care reform, lobbying for increased privatization of government services etc. etc., since it is distributed in such a complicated and convoluted manner.

In the end, it's up to the science to prove or disprove its case, and many scientists felt that James Hansen climbed out on a limb back in 1988, when he said that there was evidence for the signal that human activity was changing the climate....but since then 97% of the people who study climate research have joined him out on that limb! Once again, the consensus of expert opinion is clearly on one side, while a tiny minority of extremists, who have more often than not, had to backtrack on their previous claims (like Roy Spencer's analysis of satellite data) provide the only expert opinion for those who say "do nothing." And this issue has more at stake than denying evolution or similar crazy ideas that are able to buy influence in the public square. This time, the future of the human race is at stake because of the wager being made by greedy industrialists who put short term profit ahead of the public good, a handful of paid experts with no conscience, and a large population of reactionary morons who would rather stick with the answer that says do nothing rather than make some monetary sacrifice in the interests of future generations, and people living in the equatorial regions that are already being stressed by the floods and droughts caused by what we have already done to change the world we all have to live in.

[GostHacked]

LOL,

how about dropping the CO2 is pollution claptrap.And concentrate on REAL environmental concerns instead?

But Ann Coulter said radiation is good for us. !!!!

Also reading Fire on the Horizon (PB oil disaster), only a couple chapters into it .... it's ... quite shocking so far even if you followed the disaster last year.

[TimG]

1. advertising is extremely expensive and ineffective as a tool for sustained public influence. If he was going to spend 300 million...

You are completely clueless arn't you? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? One minute you throw up a list of think tanks and claim that is evidence of oil company money with no numbers and no evidence that moneys donated actually went to arguing against climate mitigation policy. They next minute you are trying to claim that a 300 million fund that dedicated to producing climate propaganda was not actually spent? Hypocritical nonsense.

BTW: Here is where Al Gore's 300 million went:

http://www.allianceforclimateprotection.com

In any case, I take your non-response as an acknowledgement that you have no actual evidence that fossil fuel money is significant compared to the money from "Big Green" and you are simply spewing propaganda that is lapped up by all green drones. BTW - I asked for numbers because I know they do not exist and I wanted to see you squirm when you realized you could not produce them.

Once again, the consensus of expert opinion is clearly on one side, while a tiny minority of extremists, who have more often than not, had to backtrack on their previous claims (like Roy Spencer's analysis of satellite data) provide the only expert opinion for those who say "do nothing."

Actually, when it comes to the question of what to do about CO2 climate scientists have nothing useful to contribute and their opinion is irrelevant. The opinions that matter are those of engineers who are expected to build the alternate technologies and the opinion of economists who attempt to determine if mitigation is actually the most cost effective way to deal with the issues. There is no consensus you can appeal to among engineers or economists. Edited June 10, 2011 by TimG

[sunsettommy]

But Ann Coulter said radiation is good for us. !!!!

Also reading Fire on the Horizon (PB oil disaster), only a couple chapters into it .... it's ... quite shocking so far even if you followed the disaster last year.

I have no idea what Ann C. said about radiation.

Did you know that it is NORMAL for oil to be in the Gulf of Mexico waters? Oil is seeping in rather large amounts into the waters.

That there are microbes that eat the seeped oil.

[WIP]

You are completely clueless arn't you? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? One minute you throw up a list of think tanks and claim that is evidence of oil company money with no numbers and no evidence that moneys donated actually went to arguing against climate mitigation policy. They next minute you are trying to claim that a 300 million fund that dedicated to producing climate propaganda was not actually spent? Hypocritical nonsense.

BTW: Here is where Al Gore's 300 million went:

http://www.allianceforclimateprotection.com

You are a total moron timg, so don't go throwing insults at other people, just because the world isn't turning out according to your plans! First, you posted a link to a Huffop article on Al Gore's initiative, which only referenced his big spending ad campaign; while there was no mention of how much of a promised 300 million was actually being spent; now we get to the source with pictures of windmills and when I go to the tab which details what Gore's group is actually doing, I find:

Repower America which features lots of talking about how average Americans share their stories about how they are transitioning to "a new clean energy future," I can't find anywhere where Repower America is putting up funds for design and research in alternative energy -- just lots of people talking about how important it is.

The Climate Project more talk about how important it is to transition away from burning fossil fuels: "TCP’s mission is to educate the public about the harmful effects of climate change and to work toward solutions at a grassroots level worldwide. TCP supports more than 3,000 diverse and dedicated volunteers worldwide. These volunteers are known as TCP Presenters and have been personally trained by Nobel Laureate and former Vice President Al Gore to deliver an updated version of the slide show featured in the Academy Award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth."

Would I be wrong to assume that the mission of the Climate Project has more to do with promoting Al Gore, than anything else? The reason why Gore is the focus of attention for climate change deniers is largely because he has made himself the focus. There are lots of actual scientists who are grounded in statistical analysis and have done the research that Gore reads the bullet points from - those are the people who should be giving the lectures and presenting the evidence for the obvious.

Repower At Home

Average Americans talk about what they are doing to conserve energy...I don't see anything where Repower At Home is reimbursing any of their expenses though.

Inconvenient Youth: "is a place where teenagers can share their inconvenient actions and ideas to help solve the climate crisis and lead our society to a sustainable future."

Sounds like the jr. version of repower at home...moving on...

The We Campaign: Combining an unprecedented mass media campaign with an award-winning online organizing effort, the WE Campaign demonstrates the importance of people coming together to solve the climate crisis. Some of the most popular WE Campaign advertisements include the “Unlikely Alliances” campaign, which paired together such seemingly polar opposites as Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich and Revs. Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton."

This was apparently the focus of the Huffpo editorial, and likely where most of the spending is going, because mass media with paid spokesmen is an expensive combination. This is where most campaign spending dollars go in political campaigns, so I don't know whether you are braindead or just too dense to figure out the Alliance for Climate Protection is not much more than a giant ad campaign, rather than

And the final link - "Reality" has nothing on it besides "Reality, it's not an opinion" seems lame and wasteful to maintain a website for the purpose of hosting a slogan...maybe it was scrubbed or hacked or something.

Is there anything more than Al Gore talking about renewable energy and conservation? This is what could be expected from a politician looking for self-promotion! With a 300 million dollar budget, he could be investing money in wind, solar and other alternative energy startups that could provide some tangible benefits besides a lot of noise trying to counter the noise produced by the oil company-funded deniers.

In any case, I take your non-response as an acknowledgement that you have no actual evidence that fossil fuel money is significant compared to the money from "Big Green" and you are simply spewing propaganda that is lapped up by all green drones. BTW - I asked for numbers because I know they do not exist and I wanted to see you squirm when you realized you could not produce them.

To a bonehead like you, presenting an overview of the think tanks and advocacy groups that focus on a range of rightwing issues including climate change denial, is a "non-response." There are specific examples of oil company money getting to the deniers, and my point is that tracing the money is equivalent to the RCMP or FBI trying to trace laundered drug money that ends up buying restaurants, hotels, and high priced condo developments. The money that can be traced back to the source is only the tip of a giant iceberg. Here's some specific examples featuring Exxon:

Who is behind climate change deniers?

B.P.:

Tea Party climate change deniers funded by BP and other major polluters

and the Koch heads: Greenpeace Unmasks Koch Industries' Funding of Climate Denial Industry

Those three examples present an opposite situation as Al Gore's main hobby. Gore's promotions are out front...likely because he wants his name front and center in every campaign he's working on. On the other hand, these oil companies are working covertly, just like the tobacco companies did 30 years ago. They don't put funding so called climate skeptics on their websites, and it takes a large amount of sleuthing just to find some of the money. Considering what they are putting their money behind, all of it is dirty money, that has been used to stall and delay the inevitable, and make the future of humanity more precarious!

Actually, when it comes to the question of what to do about CO2 climate scientists have nothing useful to contribute and their opinion is irrelevant. The opinions that matter are those of engineers who are expected to build the alternate technologies and the opinion of economists who attempt to determine if mitigation is actually the most cost effective way to deal with the issues. There is no consensus you can appeal to among engineers or economists.

No, the scientists who are trying to predict what we should expect now and in the near future, need to be heard first. It may already be too late for human civilization to engineer its way out of the jam we are in now. The world is facing overpopulation, declining resources, global warming all at the same time! There may be no way out but a total collapse such as those suffered by previous civilizations that thought they had it all figured out, and if that's pessimistic, it does no good living in denial and trying to paint a smiley face on our predicament.

[TimG]

This was apparently the focus of the Huffpo editorial, and likely where most of the spending is going, because mass media with paid spokesmen is an expensive combination.

Duh. Of couse it is nothing but a massive propoganda campaign. It is no different from what the you accuse the oil companies of doing - except Al Gore is spending 10 times as much. In any case, I know Al Gore is a shyster and a liar but unless you have evidence that the money promised was not spent then you a blowing hot air.

There are specific examples of oil company money getting to the deniers, and my point is that tracing the money is equivalent to the RCMP or FBI...

In other words, you got nothing but conspiracy theories and inuendo. My response is Big Greeen outspends Big Oil by a large margin. To make matters worse Big Green is often spending taxpayers money.

Here are the "Big Green" lobby groups:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Big_Green

Just one of them: Environmental Defense Fund has spent close to $700 million since 2000 on the various issues they care about. This swamps the 48 million that the Koch Brothers supposed donated and makes the 8 million Exxon spent look like spare change.

All of the other "Big Green" groups have spent as much money or more.

No, the scientists who are trying to predict what we should expect now and in the near future, need to be heard first.

And it is the engineers and economists that must decide whether anything can be done about it. So far the answer seems to be that reducing CO2 is not technologically feasible at this time and money is better spent elsewhere. Edited June 10, 2011 by TimG

[Avro]

Global warming skeptics send letter to Congress urging members not give into climate ‘alarmists’

Below is the text of a letter, sent by many apparently qualified "scientists" taking issue with climate alarmism (I manually inserted links to referenced materials):

February 8, 2011

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:

In reply to “The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change”

On 28 January 2011, eighteen scientists sent

a letter (link)

to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate urging them to “take a fresh look at climate change.” Their intent, apparently, was to disparage the views of scientists who disagree with their contention that continued business-as-usual increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the burning of coal, gas, and oil will lead to a host of cataclysmic climate-related problems.

We, the undersigned, totally disagree with them and would like to take this opportunity to briefly state our side of the story.

The eighteen climate alarmists (as we refer to them, not derogatorily, but simply because they view themselves as “sounding the alarm” about so many things climatic) state that the people of the world “need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency,” as well as the “direct health impacts from heat waves” and “climate-sensitive infectious diseases,” among a number of other devastating phenomena. And they say that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate,” which is understood to mean their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate.

To these statements, however, we take great exception. It is the eighteen climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of “what is happening to our planet’s climate,” as well as the vast amount of research that has produced that knowledge.

For example, a lengthy review of their claims and others that climate alarmists frequently make can be found on the

Web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

(see

http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.php

). That report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of all of the claims of the “group of eighteen,” citing in every case peer-reviewed scientific research on the actual effects of climate change during the past several decades.

If the “group of eighteen” pleads ignorance of this information due to its very recent posting, then we call their attention to an even larger and more comprehensive report published in 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

That document

has been posted for more than a year in its entirety at www.nipccreport.org.

These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of

floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.

Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth’s seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.

Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.

In light of the profusion of actual observations of the workings of the real world showing little or no negative effects of the modest warming of the second half of the twentieth century, and indeed growing evidence of positive effects, we find it incomprehensible that the eighteen climate alarmists could suggest something so far removed from the truth as their claim that no research results have produced any evidence that challenges their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate and weather.

But don’t take our word for it. Read the two reports yourselves. And then make up your own minds about the matter. Don’t be intimidated by false claims of “scientific consensus” or “overwhelming proof.” These are not scientific arguments and they are simply not true.

Like the eighteen climate alarmists, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible.

Signed by:

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska

¹

Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania

James Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University

¹

John Boring, University of Virginia

¹

Roger Cohen, American Physical Society Fellow

David Douglass, University of Rochester

Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University

¹

Robert Essenhigh, The Ohio State University

¹

Neil Frank, Former Director National Hurricane Center

Martin Fricke, Senior Fellow, American Physical Society

Lee Gerhard, University of Kansas1

Ulrich Gerlach, The Ohio State University

Victor Goldschmidt, Purdue University

¹

Guillermo Gonzalez, Grove City College

Laurence Gould, University of Hartford

Bill Gray, Colorado State University

¹

Will Happer, Princeton University

²

Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut

¹

Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory

¹

Richard Keen, University of Colorado

¹

Doral Kemper, USDA, Agricultural Research Service

¹

Hugh Kendrick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE1

Edward Krug, University of Illinois1

Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

²

Anthony Lupo, University of Missouri

Patrick Michaels, Cato Institute

Donald Nielsen, University of California, Davis

¹

Al Pekarek, St. Cloud State University

John Rhoads, Midwestern State University

¹

Nicola Scafetta, Duke University

Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study

S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia

¹

Roy Spencer, University of Alabama

George Taylor, Past President, American Association of State Climatologists

Frank Tipler, Tulane University

James Wanliss, Presbyterian College

Leonard Weinstein, National Institute of Aerospace Senior Research Fellow

Samuel Werner, University of Missouri1

Bruce West, American Physical Society Fellow

Thomas Wolfram, University of Missouri

¹

¹

- Emeritus or Retired

²

- Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Endorsed by:

Rodney Armstrong, Geophysicist

Richard Becherer, University of Connecticut

¹

E. Calvin Beisner, The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

Edwin Berry, Certified Consulting Meteorologist

Joseph Bevelacqua, Bevelacqua Resources

Carmen Catanese, American Physical Society Member

Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics

John Coleman, Meteorologist KUSI TV

Darrell Connelly, Geophysicist

Joseph D'Aleo, Certified Consulting Meteorologist

Terry Donze, Geophysicist

¹

Mike Dubrasich, Western Institute for Study of the Environment

John Dunn, American Council on Science and Health of NYC

Dick Flygare, Engineer

Michael Fox, Nuclear industry/scientist

Gordon Fulks, Gordon Fulks and Associates

Steve Goreham, Climate Science Coalition of America

Ken Haapala, Science & Environmental Policy Project

Martin Hertzberg, Bureau of Mines

¹

Art Horn, Meteorologist

Keith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

John Kimberly, Geologist

Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute

Robert Lerine, Industrial and Defense Research and Engineering

¹

Peter Link, Geologist

James Macdonald, Chief Meteorologist for the Travelers Weather Service

¹

Roger Matson, Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists

Tony Pann, Meteorologist WBAL TV

Ned Rasor, Consulting Physicist

James Rogers, Geologist

¹

Norman Rogers, National Association of Scholars

Rene Rogers, Litton Electron Devices

¹

Bruce Schwoegler, MySky Communications, Inc.

Thomas Sheahen, Western Technology Incorporated

James Spann, Chief Meteorologist, ABC 33/40 - Birmingham

Andrew Spurlock, Starfire Engineering and Technologies, Inc.

Leighton Steward, PlantsNeedCO2.org

Soames Summerhays, Summerhays Films, Inc.

Charles Touhill, Consulting Environmental Engineer

David Wojick, Climatechangedebate.org

Bob Zybach, Ecologist

1 - Emeritus or Retired

Wow, there's a shock.

Signed by zero climate scientitsts.

Like going to your mechanic for a second opinion on protate cancer.

[WIP]

Duh. Of couse it is nothing but a massive propoganda campaign. It is no different from what the you accuse the oil companies of doing - except Al Gore is spending 10 times as much. In any case, I know Al Gore is a shyster and a liar but unless you have evidence that the money promised was not spent then you a blowing hot air.

So, you're telling me I have to itemize all the money that think tanks and lobby groups get from oil and coal companies, while you have no proof that Al Gore really is going to spend 300 million on an ad campaign....you call him a shyster and a liar, yet when it's convenient for your rhetoric, you'll take his word on it!

In other words, you got nothing but conspiracy theories and inuendo. My response is Big Greeen outspends Big Oil by a large margin. To make matters worse Big Green is often spending taxpayers money.

Here are the "Big Green" lobby groups:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Big_Green

Just one of them: Environmental Defense Fund has spent close to $700 million since 2000 on the various issues they care about. This swamps the 48 million that the Koch Brothers supposed donated and makes the 8 million Exxon spent look like spare change.

All of the other "Big Green" groups have spent as much money or more.

Did you read Jeffrey Sinclair's Counterpunch report that a lot of that Sourcewatch article's information is based on? You would have discovered that Big Oil is also one of the funders for Big Green: "ARCO, Ciba-Giegy, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Exxon, General Electric, General Motors, IBM, Mobil Oil, Monsanto, Penzoil, USX, Waste Management and Weyerhaeuser."

Sourcewatch's report on the Environmental Defense Fund gives us a laundry list of major corporate donors as "partners." What's most disturbing, and why EDF is not considered legitimate by environmentalists, is that they take money from the worst corporate citizens in the U.S. - like Massey Coal...remember them...the company responsible for the mine disaster that killed 26 miners, and engages in the worst environmental practice of all "Mountaintop Removal," to get the coal out at lower cost -- we learn that EDF board members are heavily invested in Massey. That would also explain why they lobby for the issuance of air permits for coal plants and sewage sludge plants....so how do you think they are getting paid so well? If you read the actual reports on the fake environmental groups identified as "Big Green" you find that they will carry out Big Oil and Big Coal's agenda for a price...which is why major oil companies are also funding them! The energy conglomerates get to have it both ways: they fund a disinformation campaign denying that pumping carbon in the air will change the environment, and as a backup plan, they also fund the lobbyists who can put a green sticker on their operations! What doesn't get funded is real environmental action that takes an honest look at the problem and informs the public of what needs to be changed.

And it is the engineers and economists that must decide whether anything can be done about it. So far the answer seems to be that reducing CO2 is not technologically feasible at this time and money is better spent elsewhere.

It always amazes me that climate change deniers can't fathom that Mother Nature cannot be lobbied or lied to, and is going to react to the increases in greenhouse gases, and the overabundance of human population in its own manner, whether we like it or not! If reducing CO2 is not technologically feasible -- that only tells us that there is too much inertia and unwillingness to make those cuts. We could, and should reduce the amount of carbon we are adding to the atmosphere and the oceans; if we choose not to, carbon levels will be reduced the same way they have in the past, when natural processes like volcanic activity drove carbon levels too high -- mass extinction!

A lot of people are busy living in denial, while a small number of ecologists and zoologists have noted that the human race is at a point now where many successful but isolated species of animals are when they dominate their environment, and use up all of the available resources -- at the precipice of extinction. It's a thought that the vast majority refuse to consider, but it has to be put out there regardless of how unpleasant it is, because it's the only conceivable way to motivate people to make short term sacrifices for the benefit of future generations.

[sunsettommy]

Wow, there's a shock.

Signed by zero climate scientitsts.

Like going to your mechanic for a second opinion on protate cancer.

This has to be one of the DUMBEST post ever!

Just a sampling of people who has done climate science research.By way of the "peer reviewed" process.It is from the list you irrationally disparaged:

Roy Spencer, University of Alabama

Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2

Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1

S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1

That is enough to prove your post was dead on arrival.