http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04/climate-change-deniers-own-scientists-said-global-warming-was-real.php

Climate Change Deniers' Own Scientists Said Global Warming Was Real
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 04.25.09
Business & Politics


The New York Times has broken the story that even as far back as 1995, a few years after climate change denier the Global Climate Coalition began lobbying against doing anything about climate change (read: anything that might hurt their backers = industries which will get the short end of the stick as we cut carbon emissions), their own scientific advisors told them that global warming was real:

An internal report from 1995 said,

The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate change is well established and cannot be denied.
William O'Keefe (who was leader of the Global Climate Coalition at the time) was asked by the Times why there was such a gap between their public campaign—which stressed that the uncertainties regarding climate science were such that a cautious approach was the best thing—and that of their own advisors. O'Keefe said that the leadership of the Coalition was not aware of such a gap existing.

The Global Climate Coalition was disbanded in 2002. William O'Keefe is now chairman of the Marshall Institute, another group which opposes mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

///////////////////////////////
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=3&hp


Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: April 23, 2009

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

Document File: Advisers to Industry Group Weigh In on Warming
“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, 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.

Throughout the 1990s, when the coalition conducted a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign challenging the merits of an international agreement, policy makers and pundits were fiercely debating whether humans could dangerously warm the planet. Today, with general agreement on the basics of warming, the debate has largely moved on to the question of how extensively to respond to rising temperatures.

..more..

You can watch the hearing [link:cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-17836|here ...]

FYI, there was a problem with Gore's microphone for the first minute or so of his testimony.

There's one thing I find incredibly frustrating about all Congressional hearings on the subject of global warming. The Republicans inevitably raise the issue of "paying for all these so called reforms." They see programs like "cap and trade" as just another tax that will raise the cost of energy to the American people.

The Democrats never seem to make the right response to these arguments. Democrats point out that alternative energy can create jobs. What they never seem to point out, however, is the current cost of burning fossil fuels and paying for the empire's infrastructure to ensure a stable supply of oil.

The massive, debilitating, bankrupting cost of global US military presence is a major component of our current energy costs. The linkage never seems to be made. The US is not spreading democracy around the globe; we're spreading empire to ensure we get the oil we demand. Republicans worry about the cost of investing in our energy future but never seem to include how much money we already are wasting.

Also not built into this costing model is the "hidden" cost of warming itself. In any credible economic analysis, all costs, including the "hidden" costs, must be factored in. To whine about "all this outrageous spending" as if destroying our environment is "cost free" is the most cynical, head-in-the-sand distortion I can imagine.

The combined costs of militarism to guard and procure oil and environmental destruction are bankrupting the last vestiges of American society. Some may welcome its collapse; I fear for the weakest among us ... and perhaps for the strongest as well.

Global warming and global cooling are real. Global climate patterns change constantly. However, man made global warming is not happening. The science concerning the forcing ability of CO2 was completed in the 1950s. It is minimal. Water vapor is the green house gas with the most ability to drive temperatures, ash spewing volcanoes,too, can temporarily cause wide spread temperature changes, and the biggest driver of all, of course, is the sun. We are in a period of very low sunspot activity, hence, global cooling should be our big concern. Those who continue to believe in the false science of AGW are the REAL science deniers. Over 30,000 independent (not tied to grant monies) scientists have signed a petition to resist the Kyoto Global Warming Agreement. ttp://www.petitionproject.org/

Polluting industries continue spewing dangerous chemicals into the atmosphere and waters, but the technology already exists or could quickly come into existence to eliminate it. There also exist practical solutions for ample energy production. While wind and solar can be helpful on a limited scale, we need to keep in mind that they will never pump our sewage or meet the heavy demands of an industrial society. We do wish to remain an industrial society or at least what is left of one, don't we?

http://www.sitnews.us/BillSteigerwald/042209_steigerwald.html

the IPCC reports can be found at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm .

The IPCC put together an agenda driven computer model leaving out much readily available geological and historical data. It was junk in - junk out. The report, though oft quoted, has been completely debunked. Many of the 2000 plus original signers (believing at the onset of the "study" it was honest scientific work) later asked to have their names removed from the document. Just recently over 31,000 scientists signed a petition decrying the Kyoto Agreement and its false implication of man made global warming. The whole "scare" revolved around the hockey stick graph portraying runaway temperatures which (as can plainly be seen) is a completely inaccurate finding. It was warmer in the Middle Ages Warm Period than it was in the 1990s. The IPCC conveniently forgot to include this data which completely invalidated their their results. Now that is the inconvenient truth.
Temperatures leveled off in 2000 and began to fall in 2002. Temperatures have continued to drop precipitously since then. Solar activity had been almost nil until very recently when the first sunspot of cycle 24 occurred. This should be seen as a welcome sign that perhaps the temperatures will NOT continue to decline. Man made global warming is a scam. Yes, the 1990s was a warm decade, but so was the decade of the 1930s, and as previously mentioned, the centuries around the first millennium when the Vikings were exploring and colonizing Greenland, the temperatures exceeded that of today or even seven years ago.
After reading the IPCC report, please read the rebuttal at http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html. Mr. Novak thoroughly covers all aspects of the fraud and links to many other independent scientists who will also explain the deceit to readers. Google Dr. John Coleman, Ph.D., the creator of The Weather Channel, if you remain unconvinced. Do not hang onto a false concept because it is a Democrat (or if it were a Republican) concept. Read and think critically.

Hubby's is in chemical and materials engineering. He spend over two decades in the oil and gas industry; his specialty was computer-modeling. That's in addition to his law doctorate. Mine? A Juris Doctor also (the development of critical thinking is emphasized in law school). I'll stack my ability to think critically next to ANYBODY'S (with the exception of my husband, the scientist, a man very familiar with CHEMICAL CHANGE and its consequences). He believes in fairly imminent man-induced ecological disaster due to relatively rapid climate changes caused by dangerous human behavior, and can give a comprehensive argument, on cue, to back up his belief.

With all due respect, the names you have listed have no credibility with me. With Coleman, all I have to do is "follow the money." He's got quite a little racket going on there. He does not respond to scientific research with peer-reviewed scientific research and conclusion. He does not clearly articulate a scientific thesis and back it up with hardcore scientific research and data in a peer-reviewed journal. He does not address the scientific research point-by-point. He merely rails at the data, shouting his own conclusions with virtually nothing to back it up.

Moreover, Coleman's absurb statements regarding the relationship between scientists' discussion of global warming and the price of gasoline is pure bunk. The price of gasoline is driven by matters such as speculation, inelastic supply and demand and a monopoly on refineries by Big Energy.

You state "junk in, junk out," or the like. Prove it scientifically.

It is not whether or not it is getter colder or warmer. It is the rapid change, and the domino effect of human-induced ecological disaster. And, the "expert" you cite makes great leaps in his thinking, in my opinion.

Well, we sure see things differently. I will let others read and respond to your posts. My interests lay elsewhere. Have a nice day.

A nice response to Mr. Coleman's broad brushes can be found here:
http://open.salon.com/blog/dbmercer/2008/09/17/a_response_to_john_coleman

I quote:
[i}"To be fair, only 41 of those 31,000 “scientists” have ever published at least one peer-reviewed article during his lifetime in the broad area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in recent years nor in a field related to climate."[/i].
http://open.salon.com/blog/dbmercer/2008/09/17/a_response_to_john_coleman

AND, with respect to those "31,000" scientists signing a statement that equates with what climate-change-deniers say it is ... well, that's not exactly true either.

I regret that you do not place any trust in independent scientists as they are the ones I do put stock in. There are a plethora of scientific sources where you will find much of the same information that I linked to in a previous post. Multiple dramatic climate changes have occurred over billions of years so why is it this blip in the 1990's had to be the one that was man made? The temperatures are now dropping due to lack of solar activity, but the active sun of the 1990s could not have caused the warming then?
I will re-read the response you linked to, but as you were unimpressed with my site, I am likewise with Mr.Mercer. (Salon? -- follow the money is, no doubt, good advice!) Arguing over whose scientist is more accurate seems silly. The junk-in, junk-out statement has been proven. Simply put, again, they left out the data that would disprove their hoped for theory. They left out their nemesis, the Middle Ages Warm Period. How much more evidence does one require? Mercer points out that many of the signers of the petition were not peer-reviewed authors, but neglects to mention many of the IPCC scientists were not climate scientists or geologists and some were (agenda driven) social scientists.

I applaud you and your husband for your advanced degrees. We will soon have a Juris Doctor in the family also. However, she and her future family and yours will be paying thousands of extra dollars for a false science that is not addressing the real problem which is POLLUTION and which will forestall, debilitate or dismantle the world's energy facilities. After a long winter I am going to go out and enjoy the sun and rebuild my Vitamin D levels. The sun is not the enemy. Happy Mother's Day.

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2008/08/another-prominent-scientist-dissents.html

http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm

http://www.itsonlysteam.com/articles/landscheidt_minimum_part2.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Quote
-----
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Additionally, we know how destructive drilling for oil, as well as transporting it, can be on the environment, causing enormous pollution that lasts for literally decades.

If we want to save our planet, as well as care for the health and well-being of, and preserve the life of, the inhabitants of this planet, there's no other choice but to CUT. OUR. GASOLINE. CONSUMPTION. NOW.

That's why our family redesigned our lives so that we travel and use our cars minimally. Both of our cars are compact hybrids and get over 40 MPG (I drive the Prius, and get 45-51 MPG).

Retreat of Andean Glaciers
Foretells Global Water Woes


http://e360.yale.edu/images/features/andes-gallery-timelapse-700.jpg

The glacier atop Bolivia's 17,388-foot Chacaltaya has all but disappeared since 1940. The glacier's previous extent is shown in yellow..


http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2139

Bolivia accounts for a tiny fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions. But it will soon be paying a disproportionately high price for a major consequence of global warming: the rapid loss of glaciers and a subsequent decline in vital water supplies.
by carolyn kormann

Earlier this year, the World Bank released yet another in a seemingly endless stream of reports by global institutions and universities chronicling the melting of the world’s cryosphere, or ice zone. This latest report concerned the glaciers in the Andes and revealed the following: Bolivia’s famed Chacaltaya glacier has lost 80 percent of its surface area since 1982, and Peruvian glaciers have lost more than one-fifth of their mass in the past 35 years, reducing by 12 percent the water flow to the country’s coastal region, home to 60 percent of Peru’s population.

And if warming trends continue, the study concluded, many of the Andes’ tropical glaciers will disappear within 20 years, not only threatening the water supplies of 77 million people in the region, but also reducing hydropower production, which accounts for roughly half of the electricity generated in Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador.

Chances are that many of Bolivia’s Aymara Indians heard little or nothing about the report. But then the Aymara — who make up at least 25 percent of Bolivia’s population — don’t need the World Bank to tell them what they can see with their own eyes: that the great Andean ice caps are swiftly vanishing. Those who live near Bolivia’s capital city of La Paz need only glance up at Illimani, the 21,135-foot mountain that looms over the city, and watch as its ice fields fade away. Their loss adds to a growing unease among the Aymara — and many Bolivians — who realize that the loss of the country’s glaciers could have profound consequences.

The Aymara worship the ice-draped mountains as Achachilas, or life-giving deities, whose meltwater is vital to a region that suffers a five-month dry season and relies on agriculture to survive. Now, as greenhouse gas emissions heat the earth, the Aymara are bracing for a future in which glaciers no longer can be counted on to supply life-sustaining water.

In recent decades, 20,000-year-old glaciers in Bolivia have been retreating so fast that 80 percent of the ice will be gone before a child born today reaches adulthood. So far this melting has brought temporary increases in stream flow and contributed to massive Amazonian floods that forced several hundred thousand people from their homes last year.

But within the next decade, scientists predict that this torrent of meltwater will turn into a trickle as glaciers shrink, meaning that the age-old source of water during the dry season will steadily dwindle. Some highland farmers near La Paz already report decreased water supplies.

“Here you have precipitation only part of the year,” said French glaciologist Patrick Ginot as he stood at 16,500 feet next to Zongo glacier last year. “But it’s stored on the glacier and then melting throughout the year, and so you have water throughout the year. If you lose the glacier, you have no more storage.”

In effect, underdeveloped countries such as Bolivia are paying dearly for the massive energy consumption of the United States and the industrialized world. The so-called “carbon footprint” of the average Bolivian peasant is negligible, yet Bolivia’s poor are not only among the first to feel the harsh effects of climate change, but also are sorely lacking the resources to adapt to it.

“The grand question here is, who compensates,” says Oscar Paz, director of Bolivia’s National Climate Change Program, “because we are not culpable for climate change. It’s not fair that a country like Bolivia, which emits 0.02 percent of global greenhouse emissions, already has annual economic losses from the impacts of climate change equivalent to four percent of our GDP.” These losses, about $400 million, are largely due to the recent Amazonian floods.

Since I no longer believe in the fairy tale of "left and right" I do not consider myself a left chick, however, I do hope to keep my mind open and maintain a civil discussion when working towards the truth. Had readers of this site linked to some of the sites previously suggested many lingering questions would have been answered.
No, they are not making up the STORY that glaciers are melting, however there is a good explanation as to why they are that has nothing to do with man made global warming. I will quote from the Presentation for Congress by Monckton, March 30, 2009:

"Red Flag 48: A Representative from California said that glaciers were in recession and that snowpack was in decline. Neither of these statements is in substance true. Most of the world's 160,000+ glaciers are in Antarctica and are too high in both latitude and altitude to be affected at all by "global warming", particularly since Antarctica has been cooling for half a century (Doran et al., 2002). A recent attempt to demonstrate that the cooling of Antarctica was really a warming was produced by the same scientists who had attempted to abolish the medieval warm period, and by similarly questionable methods. The 9575 glaciers that debouch from the Himalayas into India are following a pattern of advance and recession that shows no significant change in the 200 years since the Raj first kept records (Professor M.I. Bhat, Indian Geological Survey, personal communication, 2007).

Red Flag 49: The Furtwangler glacier at the summit of Mt. Kilimanjaro, a poster-child for "global warming" alarmism, has been receding since at least 1880, and half of its ice had disappeared before Hemingway wrote "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in 1936. In 30 years of satellite monitoring, the temperature at the summit of Kilimanjaro has never risen above -1.6 degrees C, with a mean of -7 degrees C (Molg et al.,2003). The glacier has not, therefore, been melting because of "global warming": it has been ablating (passing directly from the solid to the gaseous state of water) because of regional cooling, combined with desiccation of the atmosphere accelerated by the imprudent post-colonial deforestation in the region.

Most other mountain glaciers worldwide have been receding since at least 1880 at a near-linear rate, with little or no evidence of recent acceleration in the rate of recession. In the tropical Andes, all but the very highest peaks in the Cordillera de Merida were ice-free throughout most of the past 10,000 years, but there is now more ice than usual (Polissar et al., 2006). In the Alps, recent glacial recession has revealed mountain roads, forests, and even an entire medieval silver-mine that were covered by snow, firn, and eventually ice as the Medieval Warm Period gave place to the Little Ice Age. In Greenland, some glaciers are receding and others are advancing, much as they have since ice began to accumulate there 850,000 years ago. The Viking burial-ground at Hvalsey,, the largest medieval settlement on Greenland, is under permafrost today; it was not under permafrost when the Vikings were buried."

Please go to: http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html and click on the Global Warming section. Read that information and then click from there onto: Presentation for Congress by Monckton, March 30, 2009 - You will find a tremendous amount of excellent information that is concisely written in terms a lay person can follow. The Gore family is/was closely associated with Occidental Oil. This is an attempt to control both sides of the argument, hence, the PTB can always come out the winner. Let's not be fooled from the right or from the left.

that pollution is the culprit. Since I grew up on a small oil lease (yes, that's what we called it) I know that drilling for oil can be destructive, but it does not have to be in an honest environmentally enlightened age. Often as wells went dry or as the oil refineries were dismantled companies walked away and they did, indeed, leave a mess behind. The technology and knowledge now exists to reverse this degradation. I am not a proponent of oil or gas use, but we need an energy bridge while cleaner, safer technologies come on line. Solar and wind, though helpful, will never meet the necessary energy demands if we are to remain industrialized and urbanized.

Cleaner burning cars, electric cars, hybrids,etc., are certainly steps in the right direction although the Prius batteries may be a future nightmare for someone's landfill. I do completely support intelligently designed mass transit systems.
I don't know if we, too, redesigned our lives or if we never liked to commute in the first place, but we rarely have. My spouse took the bicycle to work today. My car does get over 40 MPG on the highway and we use it only minimally for work-time travel. Traffic congestion and automobile emissions are definitely two major problems living where I do, however, this is a totally different subject than that of CO2 which should be considered our second oxygen. It is colorless, odorless, harmless, and our entire existence depends upon it.

Believing very little "news" that is spewed by the media, the point has been reached where some of these "accidental" oil spills do not look so accidental. Considering how big oil has capped so many wells, dismantled so many refineries and destroyed foreign producers, the idea of a manufactured supply and demand seems a more accurate description of "market forces". If you have read the Russian theory of oil production you will know that other theories about "fossil fuels" exist, which actually does make the sabotage of big oil by big oil a possibility, intuitively speaking.

Mr. Novak explains exactly why peer-reviewed literature is far from the model we should put unquestionable trust in. "The peer reviewed literature is limited to grants which are almost entirely issued by bureaucrats of the federal government, and they do not fund research which opposes their warped agenda. Therefore, this type of survey tells nothing of scientific consensus.

It's extremely difficult to use statistics properly. The sample must be representative, and all causative influences must be identified and accounted for. Using published science to represent scientific consensus is a contempt for proper standards of statistics. And it was published in "Science," the world's most prestigious science journal.

On the same page of Wikipedia are the results of another survey which says this:

In 1997, the conservative advocacy group Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 official state climatologists on questions related to climate change [11]. Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely manmade.

This survey would not be a bold faced lie, as limited as it is; so it shows how fraudulent the other survey was.

Fraud is not as much about bold face lying as slight of hand, because it is too easy to get caught at lying. But when there is such total overwhelm of the subject, as with global warming, there is plenty of lying, such as the claim that ice is melting over Antarctica and Greenland, when two independent studies showed otherwise. Ice is melting around the edges of those land masses due to warmer oceans, but not over the land masses in general..." http://www.nov55.com/fraud2.html

you are walking an awfully fine line here. Oh and I am a proud leftist so cool the insults.

I learned long ago that people with tunnel vision and lack of critical thinking skills are not worth my time and energy.

It's not that I do not believe in progressive ideas, rather I do not believe in what is a left issue or a right issue being defined by this politician or that politician. Global warming is a science issue. It should be looked at as objectively as possible and not framed by the media or the two parties. There was no intent to insult you, rather if there was insult it is for people like Al Gore, a man who stands to profit billions in the carbon credits trading scam he's helped to devise. The science issue is why are the glaciers melting? Is it due to higher atmospheric temperatures or are they ablating as stated in the article sited? If glaciers are building overland in many places then my best guess is it has nothing to do with man made global warming. The same then applies to glaciers that are receding in other areas especially when these glaciers have been tracked for centuries in some cases, and are well within their normal pattern. As an aside: Did you know that in the 1970s there was a plan to melt the glaciers in Glacier National Park? I can not recall the reasoning or the technique to be used at that time, but then the big scare was the coming ice age. (Soon followed by the hole in the ozone.)
Now about that fine line, what is that about? I am not entitled to post information or I perhaps worded my opening line awkwardly and should be more careful next time? I am a firm believer in the greatest good for the greatest number and support all efforts to limit pollution and to take the greatest care of our shared environment and our fellow man. Isn't that about the same as you believe?

with suspicious ties to companies such as ExxonMobil or Murdoch's Fox. I don't believe a world they say.

Why would I listen to what "Citizens for a Sound Economy" has to say? They are funded, by their own documents, by ExxonMobil. I'd sooner trust a rattler. I'll just bet they were impartial in their selection of "climatologists," none of whom were PAID OFF by ExxonMobil, either directly or indirectly.

And, still, from you .... no scientific thesis and facts to back it up, that have been published in a scientific journal in a peer-reviewed article.

Citing conservatives (an individual or an organization) twice? That doesn't sound very progressive, this being Progressive Independent and all.

This is a waste of my time. I'm sure that you can find others to listen to you, maybe even some who give credibility to "Citizens for a Sound Economy." ExxonMobil and Big Energy merely want to put the kabosh on efforts to reduce oil consumption, so that they can milk the last dollar out of us. I'm not playing. I now purchase less than a tenth of what I used to from them. I've stopped using plastic products as much as I can, also. Others can send their money to Big Energy.

If your thinking and behavior, and the thinking and behavior of others like you, was only hurting yourself, it wouldn't bother me; but, it's hurting my daughter's future, and my grandchildren's future. Anti-climate-changers want to put the kabosh on any legislative efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Pure selfishness.

And, as to my Prius battery ... rest assured that it won't be in any landfill anytime soon. The car has performed excellently, and the battery is in great shape, after a few years. Moreover, the vast majority of it is recyclable.

And, as to the source of oil, did I get it wrong, or are you giving credence to the relatively silly theory that the Earth constantly produces oil?

I have very little tolerance for Climate Change deniers like yourself. You are walking a fine line because you have not posted any peer reviewed analysis to back up your claims. So to me, this is ridiculous and a waste of my time to try and penetrate your preconceived notions about the state of our planet.

have a great time on planet HOT! :whatever:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:Organisations:Citizens_for_a_Sound_Economy_and_SCE_Educational_Foundation

Deniers:Organisations:Citizens for a Sound Economy and SCE Educational Foundation



http://exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=27


Website: http://www.cse.org

1523 16th Street, NW, 2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 783-3870
Fax: (202) 232-8356

CSE was created in 1984 as a free-market public policy organization that advocates privatization and deregulation, particulalry in environmental issues. CSE claims 280,000 members, many at the state level. Currently headed by Dick Armey, the organization has been endorsed by Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, Jack Kemp, and Newt Gingrich.

CSE's official position on global warming states, "overall, the theory of climate change is far from settled, and there is not a consensus in the scientific community on the issue." The then go on to cite climate skeptic Sallie Baliunas as representative of "scientists." The statement continues, "scientists are also skeptical of the ability of policies such as the Climate Stewardship Act or the Kyoto Protocol to actually have any impact on global climate." Citizens for a Sound Economy is also a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition as of 4/04 (http://www.cse.org/informed/key_template.php?issue_it=22).

CSE was also very active in opposing EPA's stricter air standards in the late 1990s and led a multi-million dollar campaign against the Clinton Healthcare plan. According to Disinfopedia.com, in 1984 wealthy Libertarians Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch asked Rich Fink to develop a plan for an effective free-market advocacy organization to operate in Washington, DC. Later that year, Fink, who is now executive vice president at Koch Industries, produced a lengthy business plan that resulted in CSE and the CSE Educational Foundation. Fink became CSE's first president. Ever since, Koch Industries and the Koch Family Foundations have continued to give substantial financial support to CSE and CSE Foundation. (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Citizens_for_a_Sound_Economy)

In 2000, internal documents leaked to the Washington Post showed that 85 percent of CSE's 1998 funding came from major corporations including $1 million a piece from Philip Morris and US West, $700,000 from the largest sugar interests in Florida, and $175,000 from Exxon. The article went on to raise credibility issues, citing the fact that CSE received the large donations from the sugar industry while actively opposing Federal Everglades restoration in Florida (Dan Morgan, Washington Post, February 16, 2000 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/16/MN100835.DTL&type=printable).

remember, my hubby worked for them, indirectly as they contracted with his companies, for over two decades.

Pleeeeezz....

:rofl:

who will not address the science, whether peer-reviewed, which has become meaningless, or not. Your mean spirited answers have, however, yielded you the results you wished for. You win. Door shut. Welcome to the tunnel you so decry. The temperatures of the earth have been declining for the past seven years. Growing seasons have shortened in some areas because of this. Find a peer-reviewed report that disputes this. You can't. (Don't bother, this topic has been canceled due to poor sportsmanship.) Please keep in mind, there is never a ploy or a manipulation of the public that is a single layer of the onion. You must peel it layer, by layer to understand the ruse. I do not support right wing science any more than I support left wing science. Science is science, it is not consensus. People were ridiculed, tortured or worse for stating the earth revolved around the sun; times apparently, have not changed from the time this view was the consensus of the era's leading thinkers. Personal attacks hurt but do not further the advancement of anything. I believe your astringent replies shows just how much you care. Again, UNCLE.

or my interests at heart. Again, we are in complete agreement. However, as I noted to LC the ridicule at this site for posting an alternative view has been, well, from your points of view, successful, I suppose.

George Bush was detested by 70 percent of the public. What a great reverse psychology opportunity to make the public be against anything he purported to believe in. If he and his side had advanced the notion of man made global warming that we are all going to have to pay for, while we dismantle our energy facilities and deny ourselves and especially the third world the opportunity to progress, why we liberals might just have been suspicious. However, cleverly, they foresaw this and did just the opposite.
I will leave off with three facts that were presented to Congress by the Viscount of Monckton. Where his funding comes from is immaterial if his statements are accurate. The complete text can be accessed from prior posts.

" * Global mean surface temperature has indeed been declining for seven years on all measures, wiping out one-third of the warming that had occurred over the previous 30 years;

* Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is no longer rising exponentially, as predicted by the UN, but linearly, and at a rate well below the least of the UN's projections, requiring that all of the UN's temperature projections to 2100 be approximately halved; and

* The diminution in outgoing long-wave radiation over time is one-seventh to one-tenth of that which the UN's models predict, demonstrating that the UN has overstated climate sensitivity sevenfold to tenfold, and that it has overstated the projected anthropogenic temperature increase in the 21st century by as much as sixteen fold."


I leave you with one last gasp:

Dr. Willi Soon, whom I have no idea whether he is peer-reviewed or not, but he's a Harvard astrophysicist so he should know that of which he speaks.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/

My zone 7 is now an 8. And I did not call you names, you are supporting the very small minority of deniers so why not call yourself one?



USDA revises its plant hardiness map, bringing climate change down to earth for millions of households across the country.

http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/usda/climate-change-comes-to-your-backyard

As winter retreats northward across the nation, gardeners are cleaning tools and turning attention to spring planting. But climate change is adding a new wrinkle, and now a standard reference – the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Plant Hardiness Zone Map – is about to make very clear how much rising temperatures have shifted planting zones northward.
Hopefully the new map will clear up a lot of confusion about what’s happening to the climate.

- Charlie Nardozzi, National Gardening Association.

The guide, last updated in 1990, shows where various species can be expected to thrive. A revision is expected sometime this year, and while the agency hasn’t released details, horticulturalists and experts who have helped with the revision expect the new map to extend plants’ northern ranges and paint a sharp picture of the continent’s gradual warming over the past few decades. The new version will have a wide audience: the National Gardening Association estimates 82 million U.S. households do some form of gardening, a number expected to increase as more Americans plant vegetable gardens to cut food costs.

USDAmap-450“Anyone involved with gardening, especially with perennials, uses the map to pick the right plants for their location,” says NGA horticulturist Charlie Nardozzi. “Shifting hardiness zones are a very tangible result of climate change, and people will see that change happening where they live over a short period of time.”

Familiar to anyone who has paged through a nursery catalogue, the USDA hardiness map divides North America into 11 latitudinal zones, each representing a 10ºF range of “average annual minimum temperature” - the coldest lows that can be expected in that area. Zones 2 through 10 are each subdivided into two sections - “a” and “b” - that represent 5ºF ranges. Zone 11 (southern Mexico and much of Hawaii) is tropical, with winter lows above 40ºF.

Reclassifying a gardener’s yard into a warmer area opens new options for planting flowers and shrubs that would probably not have survived local winters in the 1970s or 1980s. And the visual impact of a map, with inevitable comparisons to the 1990 version, is likely to make even non-gardeners ask what it means to live in zone 7 instead of 6.

By injecting climate change into one of America’s favorite pastimes, the revised USDA map could become an important public education tool. “Hopefully the new map will clear up a lot of confusion about what’s happening to the climate,” said Nardozzi.


http://www.usna.usda.gov/graphics/usna/Hardzone/ushzm1a.jpg

Again the name calling insistence. Have I referred to you as an AGW sky-is-boiling science denier? Anyone calling anyone a "denier" is covering up something or insecure in their facts. So what if there's a group that denies the earth is spherical. You don't have to believe them, but you also don't have to angrily lash out at them. Just look at the science - period. (And why trust the USDA, the people that think Monsanto GM terminator seeds are fine and dandy?)

Here's a site that will explain your warm WEATHER (which is not climate). I hope you will take the time to read it. I am on the opposite side of the continent and we are experiencing below average temperatures. Very few tomatoes matured last summer, so I hope for more sun - the generator of life - and plenty of precipitation, of course.

Greenland was an arable agricultural community 1000 years ago and man did not make it so or later cause the glaciation that sent the Vikings packing. Climate changes happen and it can happen relatively quickly

It's back to R.I.P. for me.

Click on this link for the actual site. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/11/another-weather-is-not-climate-story/
noaa_pr

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NOAA: April Temperatures Slightly Cooler Than Average for U.S.

May 8, 2009

The April 2009 temperature for the contiguous United States was below the long-term average, based on records going back to 1895, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC.

The average April temperature of 51.2 degrees F was 0.8 degree F below the 20th Century average. Precipitation across the contiguous United States in April averaged 2.62 inches, which is 0.19 inch above the 1901-2000 average.
U.S. Temperature Highlights

March 2009 Statewide Temperature ranks.

High resolution (Credit: NOAA)

* April temperatures were near normal across much of the United States. On a regional scale, only the Northeast (above-normal) and the West North Central (below-normal) deviated significantly from normal.
* New Hampshire observed its eighth warmest April, based on data going back to 1895. Unlike much of the Northeast, the Midwest experienced a cooler-than-normal month. From North Dakota southward to Oklahoma, Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia, temperature averages were below normal.
* For the year-to-date period, only North Dakota and Washington have experienced notably cooler-than-normal average temperatures. In contrast, much of the South and Southwest regions were above normal. New Mexico had its ninth warmest such period on record.
* Based on NOAA’s Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index, the contiguous U.S. temperature-related energy demand was 2.3 percent below average in April.

U.S. Precipitation Highlights

March 2009 Statewide Precipitation ranks.

High resolution (Credit: NOAA)

* Above-normal precipitation fell across parts of the Central and South regions, while the West and Northwest regions experienced below-normal precipitation.
* Precipitation was above normal for the contiguous United States. Georgia had its fifth wettest April on record, Kansas and Michigan had their ninth wettest, and Illinois, its tenth. Only seven states were notably drier than normal for April.
* Year to date, the Northeast experienced its fourth driest January-through-April period on record and it was the twelfth driest period for the contiguous U.S.
* By the end of April, moderate-to-exceptional drought covered 18 percent of the contiguous United States, based on the U.S. Drought Monitor. Severe, or extreme, drought conditions continued in parts of California, Florida, Hawai’i, Nevada, Wisconsin, the southern Appalachians, and the southern Plains, with exceptional drought in southern Texas.

About 21 percent of the contiguous United States had moderately-to-extremely wet conditions at the end of April, according to the Palmer Index (a well-known index that measures both drought intensity and wet spell intensity).
Other Highlights

* International Falls, Minn., recorded 125 inches of snow so far this winter season, breaking the previous record of 116 inches set in the 1995-1996 winter season. Another seasonal snowfall record was broken in Spokane, Wash., where 97.7 inches of snowfall broke the old record of 93.5 inches set in 1915-1916.
* About eight percent of the contiguous U.S. was covered by snow at end of April, according to an analysis by the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center. Snow coverage during the month peaked at 30.2 percent on April 6, after a late-season winter storm hit the Midwest and Plains.
* The 263 preliminary tornadoes reported in April was above the three-year average of 200 confirmed tornadoes.

NCDC’s preliminary reports, which assess the current state of the climate, are released soon after the end of each month. These analyses are based on preliminary data, which are subject to revision. Additional quality control is applied to the data when late reports are received several weeks after the end of the month and as increased scientific methods improve NCDC’s processing algorithms.

NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

* New Australian continent wide low temperature record set for April
* The Day The Earth Caught Fire
* Cool, dry April; 13th warmest on record
* Options Update: ICICI Bank call volatility at 118 into Indian general elect…

Ads by Google
Coldest Temperature Record
Find more sources/options for what your looking for
www.webcrawler.com
Temperature Calibrations
ISO 17025 Accredited Affordable Calibration Services. Call us Now!
www.ICCInstrument.com
Essex Self Storage
Need rental storage? Find it here. Low rates that can't be beat!
essex-selfstorage.com
Forensic Weather Experts
Wx Records, Reports and Testimony Nationwide. Call For Price Estimate
Www.WeatherConsultants.Com


« Catlin Arctic Ice Survey Packing It Up – What Have They Accomplished?

Actions

* rss Comments RSS

Information

* Date : May 11, 2009
*
* Categories : weather

he has some points, but he seems angry.

About the Author
Gary Novak

I'm an independent scientist, which means I'm free from forces of intimidation acting upon most scientists.

Science is rapidly deteriorating into a tool of propaganda for power mongers, as bureaucrats dry up funding for real science and pay only for outcome-directed research. Heavy handedness is also increasing drastically, as scientists who criticize too much lose their jobs. This situation created a need for me to take up various errors in science and explain misrepresentations.

The global warming fraud shows publicly what is happening throughout science. An agenda is forced onto real scientists and the public in contempt for rationality and evidence. Everyone is forced to submit to a fake consensus based on intimidation. (How the Firing Works)
(See also Oreskes.)

The public doesn't understand how science is deteriorating, because they equate technological advances with science. Technology produces a product which tests its adequacy, while science produces knowledge, which is abstract and questionable. So I attempt to describe what is happening in science in terms the public can understand. (see How Did Science Go Wrong?)

I criticize at the level of abstract basics. This includes laws of science, logic of assumptions and philosophical definitions. Superficial arguments too often contradict underlying science or logic. Explaining the basics helps people evaluate for themselves.

<snip>


(and maybe a little 'out there')

Basic Reality

I find that I must revert to philosophy to explain the overwhelming corruptions and what can be done about them. There is one answer, and it is highly effective. No corruption can stand up to truth.

But truth can only be significant when the underlying reality is correct. I refer to the underlying reality as basic reality. Basic reality is the reality upon which other realities depend. Generally, this means starting with philosophical definitions, such as those for reality, truth, reason, etc.; but in science, it also means using basic principles as the determining influence.

Basic principles explain cause-and-effect relationships. But as science gets more and more corrupt, the basic principles and cause-and-effect relationships are more often ignored or contradicted. It means science is reverting back to the hocus pocus and charlatanism which it was supposed to replace.

There is a tendency to substitute a social analysis for basic reality describing results but not causes. This leaves a void. It doesn't explain why problems exist or what the answers would be.

Problems cannot be solved without correcting basic realities. The alternative is to expect someone to solve the problems, such as Congress, by pushing a magic button. It never happens. The public has the primary responsibility for solving problems through rationality which defines the causes and solutions. Reason only gets effective at solving problems when it gets basic enough.

<snip>

************


None of this necessarily makes him wrong, but there are loads of respected scientists who would strongly disagree with him.
He also claims science publications discriminate against publishing his stuff. My guess is that is not the reason...

if you really want to study climate change, go to this portal:
http://www.climateark.org/overview/


Peace and
happy studies!
G_j

Thank you for your measured response. I certainly do not have permission to speak for Mr. Novak, plus I only cited him because he explains in a relatively simple way, global warming/cooling science. He is not a climatologist and and does not claim to be one; his site covers many different aspects of science. Mr. Novak does lists an e-mail address and may be willing to correspond with any who wish to discuss this matter further with him.

Who gets picked to enter a doctoral program and who gets to do the picking, and how that "decider" got there in the first place and who funded his chair, and who is funding the grants is an extremely political/financial affair. That is why the average person has no idea that there are alternative theories, held by very erudite scholars that never see the light of day.

Did that statue in the middle ages really cry or did some very intelligent person, knowingly pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting? I do believe the geological past and the long proven science of CO2 should point to the fact that a computer model (leaving factual data out) might well be, errrrr, statuesque.

Look at it from Mr. Novak's point of view. If he is correct, doesn't he have a right to be angry? Again think of the pharmaceutical industry. Peer-reviewed, academically weighty, etc., but do you really think you are getting the truth -- the whole truth.... or do you think some of those hidden from the public, roll your eyes at, sneer at,or mock derisively alternative ideas/theories might just be closer to the truth? I will bet a lot of those alternative doctors who have saved far more patients than the standard practice robots, but then lost their license to practice (sometimes at gun point,) are angry, too.

I will take a look at the site you linked too. Just like the http://Wattsupwiththat.com which is definitely a meteorologist/climatologist site, the articles and especially the comments by the well-versed often become quickly exclusive. I applaud those who make science understandable for the curious.