In 2006, according to the Pew Research Center, 77 percent of Americans saw "solid evidence" for global warming. By this fall, that figure had dropped to 57 percent—and just 36 percent said they believed that humans are to blame. That's good news for climate change skeptics and deniers, who have spent years trying to perpetuate the illusion that the reality of climate change is up for debate. Never mind that the scientific consensus is firmly on the side of global warming—for anyone seeking an alternate view, there's an entire parallel universe where junk science and bogus statistics ricochet through an echo chamber of kooky blogs, "nonpartisan" institutes, and fake "green" and "citizen" groups that are often acting on behalf of the oil and coal industry.
With Copenhagen kicking off and the overblown "Climategate" scandal making headlines, the deniers have even more fodder for their campaign to kill serious action to slow climate change.
Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine.
- No. 1: ExxonMobil
- No. 2: Lord Christopher Monckton
- No. 3: American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
- No. 4: Plants Need C02
- No. 5: American Petroleum Institute (A.K.A. Energy Citizens)
- No. 6: Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (A.K.A. ClimateDepot.com)
- No. 7: The Heartland Institute
- No. 8: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (A.K.A. The Idso Family)
- No. 9: FreedomWorks
- No. 10: Tennessee Center for Policy Research (A.K.A. Carnival of Climate Change)
- No. 11: Federation for American Coal, Energy and Security (A.K.A. FACES of Coal)
- No. 12: Institute for Energy Research (A.K.A. American Energy Alliance)
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Forgot one
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Dec. 7, 2009 10:20 AM PST.
You forgot to mention the illustrious (or infamous) Jim Inhofe, of Oklahoma. His entire career and web site are dedicated to climate change skepticism.
This list shows a lot of
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Dec. 7, 2009 1:09 PM PST.
This list shows a lot of work, but I hate all the clicking through.
What I want to know for each of these guys, how much have they spent and how, and then I'll click through.
I think your post would have benefited greatly from a summary table/pie chart/....
And here is the latest real science
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Dec. 7, 2009 2:26 PM PST.
for anyone who is doing battle with denialists.
Thanks for the comments
Submitted by Josh Harkinson on Mon Dec. 7, 2009 4:06 PM PST.
Inhofe is mentioned in the posts on ClimateDepot.com and Heartland Institute. If you read the entries, you'll see that, in general, they work in references to many other players.
It would have been nice to be able to make a chart on where these groups' money came from and how they spent it, but unfortunately, they aren't required to disclose that in detail.
Thank goodness for Climategate
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 1:50 PM PST.
I don't care how we get there but I am thankful for any method or anything that kills any kind of climate legislation. I am not willing to spend one additional dime or make one change in my lifestyle for a bunch of made up science.
Make one change in...
Submitted by DocHumboldt on Wed Dec. 16, 2009 9:33 AM PST.
May your grand-children roast in your apathy, idiot.
May your grand-children be
Submitted by VNJD (not verified) on Thu Dec. 24, 2009 11:35 PM PST.
May your grand-children be taxed into third-world poverty by your useless activism, moron.
taking a look around at these
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Dec. 8, 2009 5:22 PM PST.
taking a look around at these utterly ignorant climate-change-deniers, i think hell with it. we may as well let it all go down the tubes. humanity doesn't deserve the earth and the planet would be better off if massive catastrophe kills us all.
Dirty Dozen Top Hysterics
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Dec. 9, 2009 7:44 PM PST.
Does Ma Jones make the Dirty Dozen list of the Top Hysteric Disinformation sites?
Does Ma Jones make the Dirty
Submitted by TheOne (not verified) on Thu Dec. 10, 2009 2:34 PM PST.
Does Ma Jones make the Dirty Dozen list of the Top Hysteric Disinformation sites?
I suspect it is more likely that you make the Dirty Dozen list for Top Trolls.
Rising temperatures>
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Dec. 15, 2009 6:13 AM PST.
Compare the tiny rise in atmospheric temperatures with the selected ground temperature records that are used to justify this 'climate change' campaign and you will see the science is far from settled.
Climate changes all the time but the hypothesis that it is directly related to CO2 - a gas that makes up less than 0.0004 of the Earth's atmosphere - and specifically human releases of it, does not seem to add up.
That is probably why most of the figures we are presented with to justify 'climate legislation' are generated by computer models that are completely dependent on the subjective and incomplete data fed into them.
BTW - I have no problem with reducing human pollution, but let's drop the scare campaign and address this issue intelligently.
How are we supposed to know
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Dec. 16, 2009 11:48 AM PST.
How are we supposed to know which side is telling the truth? The climate is probably changing, but they rich and powerful are skewing the debate so they can profit. It's either do nothing or carbon trading? Sounds like we should be kissed first no matter what.
Questions for GW deniers
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Fri Dec. 18, 2009 12:44 AM PST.
!. ___ Do you GW deniers deny that the Arctic and Antartica are currently thawing and the ice there melting at an incredible rate?
2.___ Do you deny that glaciers world wide are melting at an incredible rate?
3. ___ Are you aware that 55 million years ago, global warming caused by volcanic activity resulted in methane pouring out into the atmosphere and that killed almost all life on the planet within hours?
4.___ Do you know that the amount of CO2 humanity is pumping into the atmosphere every year is equal to that of 17,000 active volcanos?
5.___ Are you aware that more than a 1,000 most highly regarded scientists and professors, most whom have earned a Phd in subjects such as Oceanograpry, Earth Science, Climatology, Geology and other related fields have a firm consensus which has been peer reviewed, that global warming is a fact and that the GW deniers are sadly mistaken and that we must take immediate steps to prevent what occurred 55 million years ago?
6.___ Have you ever visited the Arctic and spoken with the people who live there and or with the scientists who have spent their entire adult lives studying the Arctic's perma-frost and state that the methane releases are a__ "Ticking time bomb" ?
7.___ If global Warmng is a hoax, why are the Planet's ice caps melting away?
8.___ Are you aware that the two massive, thousands of miles square, miles thick ice sheets in Antartica, are breaking up and they have been relatively stable for millions of years and an iceburg from the eastern ice shelf, one the size of Manhatten was recently observed off of the coast of Australia?
9.___ Are you aware that the ocean's vital for ALL life phytoplankton, are rapidly dying off, those microscopic plants supply our atmosphere and waters with over 70% of our oxygen, the phytoplankton breed in the cold waters beneath Antartica's ice shelves, ___did you know that?
10. ___ Do you understand any of those questions?
I thought so.
Your answers
Submitted by Heathen Denier (not verified) on Wed Feb. 3, 2010 2:02 PM PST.
1) Ice freezes and thaws all the time. Define "incredible rate". The Arctic ocean's coverage of ice has increased since 2007 at it's fastest rate since they began recording it according to NASA's Aqua Satelite, by the way.
2) See 1 above, glaciers thaw all the time. The Ganges River in India has as one of it's main sources the Gangotri Glacier. Again, define incredible rate. It probably would have served your purpose better to say "glaciers are receding". How old is Indian civilization? The Ganges River has been at the epicenter of it, therefor, the Gangotri Glacier has been thawing at an "incredible rate" for a long time.
3) Volcano's caused global warming? I thought it was all caused by man. Will cap and trade stop volcanoes?
4) You mean like the volcano in 3) above. Shouldn't something catastrophic have happened like 17,000 times already then?
5) Yup - and now we know more about that "peer review" process, don't we, thanks to the leaked e-mails. Also, concensus does not make science. The usual practice is: Ask a Question, Do Background Research, Construct a Hypothesis, Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment/Series of Experiments, Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion, Communicate Your Results . By the way, fudging data and using "tricks" are not part of the scientific process.
6) Methane under the permafrost? Let's tap into it and use it as fuel!
7) The planet's ice caps are not melting. Unless you consider winter/summer fluctuation. NASA researchers have found that the amount of ice in the Antarctic increased from 1979 to 1999, as measured by satellites. Also see 1) above.
8) Yup - it happens. Have you ever heard about the Titanic? Of course it was in the Northern Hemisphere. But didn't it hit an iceberg? Seems like these things have been breaking off and floating around well before the Industrial Revolution.
9) Have you ever heard of photosynthesis? Phytoplankton breed most rapidly when abundant sunlight provides the perfect conditions for them to multiply in vast quantities. The layer of fresh water left behind from the melting ice in the spring provide the nutrients for the phytoplankton. They don't breed in the waters "beneath Antartica's ice shelves", there's no sunlight beneath the ice shelves. No sunlight = no photosynthesis.
10) More than the person writing the test I expect.
Like pissing in the ocean
Submitted by Dr. Mom (not verified) on Fri Dec. 18, 2009 5:46 AM PST.
I don't deny we are in a warming cycle. I am not convinced that it's due to human activity. I especially disagree with #6 up there.
I'm old enough to remember when we thought we were headed for an ice age next.
While I'm all for reducing our impact on Mother Earth, I am 100% against these proposals of how to stop it. The models are bogus. First rule of engineering. Thou shall not dick around with that which you do not understand. 100 yrs of record-keeping is a piss in the ocean.
Arctic Thaw and methane releases
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Thu Jan. 14, 2010 1:28 AM PST.
Hi Dr. Mom,
I tend to agree with you about the political inspired proposals on how to deal with GW, ___ but you didn't state WHY you disagree with number 6.
Unfortunantly most people are totally unaware of what GW is doing to the Arctic. That area of Earth which is about a fifth of our planet is feeling the results of GW more than any other area and the danger of the thawing perma frost is the most serious problem ever faced by humanity. I'll offer a link here, it was first published in the year 2004 and few listened to the author.
That is very unfortunate because what he wrote and predicted is now happening, he was and is 100% correct and unless we take firm sensible action to alter it we won't be here five or so years from now posting our opinions.
Why we are experiencing GW should not be the issue for the short term, the issue for right now should only be that GW is a fact and how to deal with it before the methane in the Arctic bursts out in ernest. When that happens, and it is already begun to happen, the amount of methane gas released will increase our atmosperic CO2 levels by__3,000%. That Dr. would be the silent end, Co2 levels would be over a million ppm. 351 isn't good.
Read this article and then check it it out. It takes about threr minutes to digest it. You may alter your opinion on number 6, that of course will be your perogative.
When in doubt, do nothing.
Submitted by drosera (not verified) on Tue Jan. 12, 2010 8:19 PM PST.
Dr. Mom,
So, lessee...we don't completely understand climate change so we should do nothing to change our inputs to the atmosphere? Your default position is: If we are not completely certain, we should not act. Like, if you are in a theater and smell smoke, you should continue to enjoy the show because you don't see the flames. Okay, Mom, but Jeez, I won't have you take my kids to a show.
don't worry about the faked
Submitted by hayek (not verified) on Tue Dec. 22, 2009 7:05 AM PST.
don't worry about the faked global warming data, bogus "peer review" based on the same flawed data, and the circle the wagon mentality of the GW crowd to keep the government money flowing. you just have to believe! and the proponents of GW have the audacity to claim they just look at the science.
Smart__Smart__Smart.
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Tue Dec. 22, 2009 12:22 PM PST.
Yes indeedy HAYEK, that fact that the Arctic is thawing and the ice caps of Earth are rapidly melting, for the first time in millions of years, is "fake" data.
The fact that the Arctic's Northwest Passage is now open for shipping with no need of icebreakers, for the first time in human history, is "fake" data.
The fact that the Arctic's methane is releasing and doing so at an alarming rate is "fake" data.
The released methane will increase CO2 levels by 3,000%. Multiply 360+by 3,000 and tell us that that amount of CO2 in our atmosphere will not be a problem.
All of those items, with the exception of the amount methane will increase CO2 levels are easily seen with one's own eyes and no scientific data is required to easily determine it is not fake anything, __ it's factual, one can easilly see it.
When all of the Arctic's and ocean's methane fully releases in a few years time, if you are not asleep, take a real deep breath and hold it, because that's all you will get ___ forever.
Read the link I offered in my above posting and tell us it's fake data and why it is fake. Or are you smarter than the man who wrote it? You definently are smart.___ Smart, smart, smart. __LOL.
Methane release raises CO2 levels?
Submitted by Heathen Denier (not verified) on Wed Feb. 3, 2010 2:27 PM PST.
Hello:
Methane = CH4, that's one Carbon atom and 4 Hydrogen Atoms. Carbon Dioxide is CO2, that's one Carbon atom and 2 Oxygen atoms. How can a release of Methane (CH4) cause the CO2 levels to increase by 3000%? You need to go back and re-read Mr. Atcheson's article. His article stated "These ices, called clathrates, contain 3,000 times as much methane as is in the atmosphere. Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide."
Kem Patrick Said: "The released methane will increase CO2 levels by 3,000%. Multiply 360+by 3,000 and tell us that that amount of CO2 in our atmosphere will not be a problem. "
Go back to basic math: 3000% does not equal multiply by 3000: 100% = times one, 200% = twice, 300% = three times, ==> 3000% = 30 times.
If you can't understand basic Math, how do you expect to understand and credibly comment on something as complex as Global Climate Phenomena?
Global Warming
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Dec. 23, 2009 9:49 AM PST.
Wonder what percentage of deniers is based on simple ignorance, fear of change, greed, and apathy...and what percentage is based on the phony "data" disseminated by powerful forces of greed and power, such as Mother's "dirty dozen". The pphony data seemcertainly to be having their impact, if the figures showing declining belief in GW are to be believed.
Calling all rationalists: Let's use the language suggested by the GREAT Lester Brown, founder of World Watch; now head of the
Earth Policy Institute, called "one of the world's most influential thinkers." Brown suggests we stop talking about "saving the planet". The planet will do just fine without us; probably better!
What we need to worry about is saving CIVILIZATION! His latest book: "Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization" detailing how unchecked global warming will destroy civilization, is a must-read. Fellow rationalists, arm yourself with the information to dialog with sway-able skeptics! The hour is late...
Global warming
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Dec. 23, 2009 12:48 PM PST.
Thanks, Mother, for those links to the major propagandists for greed. I always wonder how they manage to get so deep into denial about what their children and grandchildren will endure!
Folks, let's quit talking about "saving the planet". The planet would do just fine without us -- probably better.
Let's adopted the rhetoric of the GREAT Lester R. Brown, founder of World Watch and now running the Earth Policy Institute.
The Washington Post called Lester Brown "one of the world's most influential thinkers." The Telegraph of Calcutta refers to him as "the guru of the environmental movement." In 1986, the Library of Congress requested his personal papers noting that his writings "have already strongly affected thinking about problems of world population and resources."
Brown believes we should instead be talking about SAVING CIVILIZATION! Check out his new book "Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization", in which details the horrors anticipated from
diminishing resources, as the haves fight to stave off the starving have-nots. This is real-world calculation, as opposed to the crazy numbers that the deniers pull out of their...assets.
Earth will save itsself? __ Perhaps
Submitted by Kem Patrick73 on Wed Dec. 23, 2009 1:58 PM PST.
Thank you for your comments, " no name", it is refreshing to see comments here other than those of the GW deniers. I agree with your comments except for one rather minor thing, __ that is, "the planet will survive even if we humans don't".
When the methane in the Arctic and the oceans finally burps out into our atmosphere, almost all life will be eradicated very quickly. It is possible some deep sea creatures, various froms of bacteria and perhaps some worms and rodents will survive for awhile and perhaps enough of the ocean's plant life will survive. If it doesn't, then over time any life that did survive will also die off.
The reason for that is, the ocean's plant life, or phytoplankton, provide Earth's atmosphere and waters with most of the oxygen for life on the planet. __ No or very little oxygon equals no life. After a million or so years the Earth will evolve into another Mars, a lifeless, dirty wind blown ball of rock, orbiting our once life giving star. Our sun gave us life because Earth developed a good supply of oxygen.
.
.
On another subject, if one googles ___arctic methane ____ they will find several recent and very credible articles about how the methane in the Arctic is now billowing from the Arctic ocean's sea floor. ___ It has begun and time is now very short. I do wish it were not so. Reality is reality however.
Climate Truth Commission
Submitted by Rmoen on Wed Jan. 13, 2010 1:38 PM PST.
Global warming is certainly occurring. On that, most everybody agrees. But still unclear is how much human activity has to do with it or what we should do to affect the future.
It should be obvious to everyone that the United States should stop out-sourcing its climate science to the UN and convene its own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission. Why obvious? For starters: UN climate scientists systematically ignore natural climate cycles, there's been little global warming for ten years and Climategate. It also defies common sense that we allow the UN to serve as both judge (IPCC) and advocate (Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen).
Obvious again is 'the science is settled' argument lacks the common sense acknowledgment that climate science is young science with many discoveries ahead. And that its based upon reams-and-reams of difficult to decipher data.
-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
