Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

www.nytimes.com

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.

...

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
The Misinformation Machine: The piper of the right-wing deniers
The american denial of global warming...
Climate obscuration - Bush gov misled public on climate change

“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.

Although the coalition disbanded in 2002, this evidence only consolidates the clear tactics of industry and ideologues in denying very clear and well-established science.

Indeed, their mantle has been taken up by many other anti-science groups (usually right-wing/libertarian think-tanks funded by the likes of the Scaife foundation) who are willing to risk the well-being of humanity in the pursuit of profit and ideology. Their tactics are identical to those of the deniers during the tobacco wars.

Enjoy


www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 24-4-2009 by melatonin]

I never get an answer to this; just how can 383 parts per million [CO2 in the atmosphere] have so much effect on global warming?
In any case, Methane gas is 20 times worse than CO2 for heat retention, but that never gets mentioned.

Some of the scientists who denied the link between tobacco and lung cancer are exactly the same people who are denying a link between industry and global warming. You can find the episode of the Fifth Estate called the Denial Machine which documents the fact. I posted it on here but just got the normal bunch of "I hate Gore" idiots responding.

Yes, methane is a lot worse that CO2. Is doesn't get a mention 'cos its mainly locked up in the permafrost, which is now melting. As far as I understand, the models don't take account of methane, so it's going to be worse than predicted.

Are these the same scientist that wanted to dump black soot on the polar ice caps to "counter" the dreaded Ice Age in the 1970's?

Global Warming (or the solutions for at least) is a freeking money scam.

Where is this "UNDENIABLE TRUTH" that these tards have other than bunk computer models?

Cap & Trade Scam.... A solution that we need to find a problem for, a reverse engineered plausible solution that a "problem" needed to be found for.

How many times do we have to see these climate scientist fake data and watch their predictions never come to pass before people stop regurgitating the rhetoric?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=infolurker
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.climatedepot.com...

epw.senate.gov...

Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.

The explosion of skeptical scientific voices is accelerating unabated in 2009. A March 14, 2009 article in the Australian revealed that Japanese scientists are now at the forefront of rejecting man-made climate fears prompted by the UN IPCC.

Prominent Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, said in March 2009 that “there was widespread skepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century ‘is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Maruyama noted that when this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, ‘the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” [Also See: The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [ See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here –More analyses of recent developments see report’s introduction

LOL... How about we tax everyone to build higher walls around the four corners of the flat earth before all the oceans drain over the edge and kill us all?

I have a better scam... the infolurker effect:

www.abovetopsecret.com...





[edit on 24-4-2009 by infolurker]

Well I'm not sure the Illuminati law for clean car emissions have
helped any.

The idea of taking the engine CO, which is burnable and would
raise the efficiency of the engine, and passing it through the
ripoff catalytic converter, an illuminati made and law inforced
device, to make more CO2 might be the reason we mist go
green according to media hucksters of the Illuminati.

The California Governor Brown had the patent and had his
state pass the first emissions law. One sweet deal that the
Illuminati in every state picked up on.

Never will the engine eficiency go up, now we have 10%
ethanol.
Can any one say another Illuminati ripoff.

Originally posted by pikestaff
I never get an answer to this; just how can 383 parts per million [CO2 in the atmosphere] have so much effect on global warming?

This is what i struggle to come to terms with and , unfortunately, cannot provide an answer either.

The arguments for and against manmade global warming/climte change seem to be equal in their scientific backing and trying to follow some of the debates on ATS is enough to make my head spin!

Originally posted by pikestaff
I never get an answer to this; just how can 383 parts per million [CO2 in the atmosphere] have so much effect on global warming?
In any case, Methane gas is 20 times worse than CO2 for heat retention, but that never gets mentioned.

CO2 accounts for about 9-26% of the greenhouse effect of the earth. It's not the 383ppm that's the big issue.

At 560ppm, we are looking at 2-4.5'C warming from the original 280ppm pre-industrial level. At 1120ppm, add another 2-4.5'C.

If we can maintain 383ppm, no big problem. We won't.

Methane is not ignored. It is an issue. CO2 is the more pressing one, though, given we are releasing 27 billion tonnes of the stuff every year. At the moment, ocean and terrestrial sinks absorb about 50% of that. But that will not be maintained.

Originally posted by logicalview
The arguments for and against manmade global warming/climte change seem to be equal in their scientific backing and trying to follow some of the debates on ATS is enough to make my head spin!

You're a victim of the deniers FUD campaign. Their aim is to present a false sense of debate. The science is pretty clear, and has been for decades. As you can see, 14 years ago even industry shills accepted the science was robust.

The discussion is focused on how to act now. But no worries, you'll thank us eventually.

reply to post by melatonin

If this story was even remotely accurate, it would not have taken 7 YEARS to surface, would it? Especially in light of the heated debate over Anthropogenic Global Warming (now, 'Climate Change')!

Your "source," Andrew Revkin (of the NYT), has had an AGW chip on his shoulder for years.

He is known to misquote and quote out of context respected experts who disagree with the AGW agenda.

Prof. Robert Carter (James Cook Univ., Australia Research Council) says Revkin is off base with his agitation:

Andrew Revkin's latest article in the New York Times makes for strange reading; silly, even. For though the technical experts may have been advising (for some strange, doubtless self-interested reason) this: “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”, I'll eat my hat if anyone could show that was actually the case at any time since 1990.

My guess is that Revkin -- like all other promulgators of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) hysteria throughout the media and scientific communities -- is starting to really feel the weight of the evidence that shows all too clearly that dangerous AGW is a myth, and is simply thrashing around in any and every direction to try to find a way of continuing to obfuscate the issue until December.

(emphasis added)www.climatedepot.com...

As Dr. Carter points out, with the next "Kyoto" coming to Copenhagen in December, the AGW propagandists are going to almost any length to distort the countervailing theory, and even the postulate that Climate Change is a natural process, so that valuable resources are squandered or directed to their pockets/institutions instead of attacking realistic goals such as local remediation.
members.iinet.net.au...

Dr. Carter has already gone 'toe-to-toe' with Revkin, as have Profs. John Christy (Univ. of Alabama) and Richard Lindzen (MIT) over his misquotes and distortions of their positions and statements contraverting AGW.climaterealists.com...

There may be room for debate on the AGW topic, but falsifications and unsupported claims (unaccredited "sources are just as bad) don't make for healthy discussion.

Of course, the last thing Chu and Obama want is healthy discussion of anything on their agenda.

Deny ignorance.

jw



[edit on 24-4-2009 by jdub297]

Originally posted by jdub297
If this story was even remotely accurate, it would not have taken 7 YEARS to surface, would it? Especially in light of the heated debate over Anthropogenic Global Warming (now, 'Climate Change')!

The document has been released for a federal case.

The documents were recently sent to The New York Times by a lawyer for environmental groups that sided with the state. The lawyer, eager to maintain a cordial relationship with the court, insisted on anonymity because the litigation is continuing.

Just like the tobacco wars, these groups were/are just obfuscating the science for profit and ideology.

Your "source," Andrew Revkin (of the NYT), has had an AGW chip on his shoulder for years.

You mean he has followed the science and has some understanding of its implications?

Revkin is actually quite conservative on the issue and has been criticised by climate scientists.

He is known to misquote and quote out of context respected experts who disagree with the AGW agenda.

Perhaps he has. But I find it hilarious that you produce such 'honest' brokers (i.e., deniers) as Bob Carter, Lindzen, and Christy.

The document itself is available.

Human activities can affect the energy balance at the Earth's surface in three ways:

• combustion, agriculture and other human activities emit greenhouse gases and can raise their concentration in the atmosphere, which would directionally lead to warming;
• combustion emits particulates, and gases such as sulfur dioxide which form particulate matter in the atmosphere, which would directionally lead to cooling; and
• changes in land-use, such as removing forests, can change the amount of energy absorbed by the Earth's surface, the rate of water evaporation, and other parameters involved in the climate system, which could result in either warming or cooling.

These three factors create the potential for a human impact on climate. The potential for a human impact on climate is based on well-established scientific fact, and should not be denied.

linky

Then they focus on problems of accurate predictions of the effects of human activity. Later it discusses 'contrarian' ideas and how vacuous they are (including Lindzen, solar activity, etc). They were vacuous 14 years ago and are moreso now. However, those criticisms were removed from the final document, and the basic science was also ignored. Today...

Leonard S. Bernstein, 68, was chairman of the coalition’s advisory committee in the mid 1990s. He was a chemical engineer and climate expert at Mobil Corp. (now part of Exxon Mobil) from 1989 to 1999 and is now retired. He also was a lead author on the climate assessments in 2001 and 2007 from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In a telephone interview, Dr. Bernstein declined to discuss the old documents or events in the 1990s. But he confirmed his longstanding view of the climate problem. Care must be taken in choosing solutions, he said, noting how a rush to biofuels has backfired. But, he added, global warming poses real risks and requires a real response. “There is sufficient scientific evidence that we need to take action,” Dr. Bernstein said.

dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com...

Lucky they have deniers, like Carter, to front for these $$$$ interests.

There may be room for debate on the AGW topic, but falsifications and unsupported claims (unaccredited "sources are just as bad) don't make for healthy discussion.

There's little room. The science is all but overwhelming. All you have is FUD and wishful-thinking. When the deniers actually have evidence rather than slash and burn FUD, perhaps discussion would be in order.

Of course, the last thing Chu and Obama want is healthy discussion of anything on their agenda.

The discussion has been happening for the last 30 years and more. The science clearly shows you and your denying ilk to have nothing of worth.

[edit on 24-4-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

You're a victim of the deniers FUD campaign. Their aim is to present a false sense of debate. The science is pretty clear, and has been for decades.

And therein lies the problem i was refering to. I am not a climatologist or any other kind of relative academic. I, like most people, have to dredge through hundreds of documents and reports made by thousands of 'scientists' who claim and counterclaim all aspects of the global warming debate. Who am i to question what they are stating.

You say i'm a victim of the deniers FUD campaign. If i made a favourable comment to your views, an anti-manmade global warming pro-activist would claim i was a victim of the 'gore brigade'

So i hope you see my predicament

regards


[edit on 24/4/09 by logicalview]

[edit on 24/4/09 by logicalview]

Originally posted by logicalview
So i hope you see my predicament

regards

I do see it, and I totally understand the problem for honestly confused laypeople.

The deniers work by manipulating the media's rather pathetic need to present some form of faux balance on a number of issues. So you get bombarded with as much deniers FUD as you do actual science. It's almost comparable to giving flat-earthers a soapbox.

It gives a false sense of debate and balance.

Although you might hear people denigrating the IPCC, they actually present a very conservative view of the present state of climate science. The current scientific position is much more concerning than the last report. Indeed, every single major scientific organisation is clear on their acceptance of human impacts on climate (even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists have recently changed their position to acceptance), the scientific literature is clear, the experts in climate science all but agree.

On the other hand, there are a small number of ideologically-motivated industry-funded think-tank associated talking heads who get around a lot, and many less than knowledgeable minions who spread the FUD manure on forums and blogs. In reality, there is no comparison and no real debate.

The last IPCC report is a summary of the scientific data up to a few years back. It's the best place to start.

[edit on 24-4-2009 by melatonin]

Thanks for a 'relatively' un-biased heads up. I can respect your stand point on this issue since you are clearly well versed. And having followed several threads in which you have been a major contributor, i am not foolish enough to engage in debate.

I will wish you well on you 'GW crusade' and i'll endevour to make a fresh start.

regards

reply to post by melatonin


Selective quotations don't help you. "Can affect ... ." and "potential ...human affect ... " are far from convincing.

The article explains how the GCC and IPCC attempt to sway the opinions of scientists into their favor. Here's just a snippet and your link:

At the conclusion of the WG I Plenary Session that approved the statement on a human impact on climate, the authors of the underlying report were instructed to modify their report to bring it into agreement with the summary statement. This process is the reverse of what is called for by the IPCC rules of procedure and normal scientific practice.

WG I considered four types of information in evaluating whether the observed change in climate was in fact "highly unusual in a statistical sense," and whether it could be attributed to human influences. A discussion of each type of information follows.

1) Model-based estimates of natural variability - The Max Planck Institute (MPI), a German government laboratory and developer of one of the GCMs, ran their model for 1000 years into the future with only random perturbations to assess "natural" variability of temperature. They then determined, with 95%confidence, that the changes in temperature observed over the last 100 years could not be explained by their measure
of "natural" variability. German politicians and press have reported this result as meaning that there is 95%confidence that the temperature changes of the last 100 years have been caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, a significant overstatement of the scientific finding.

The MPI finding does not prove that the temperature changes of the last 100 years are due to human greenhouse gas emissions for two reasons:
o Models are simplifications and therefore less variable than the real world.
Actual "natural" variability of temperature is almost certain to be larger than the estimate from the MPI computer study.
o The temperature change of the past 100 years may be due to natural changes in climate. Changes of this magnitude have occurred naturally in the past without any human influence.

graphics8.nytimes.com...

Do you deny that solar activity is at a minimum today(Recall the 'Maunder Minimum' and 'Little Ice Age')?

Do you deny that the Antarctic ice cover is growing at the rate of 10,000 sq. km./decade?

Of course, AGW scientists readily argue that growing Antarctic ice cover is "consistent with" AGW. Others argue that diminishing ice cover is "consistent with" AGW!

With that type of logic, what is NOT 'consistent with' AGW?

If you do, congratulations on joining the true "deniers" of the AGW alarmists.

Originally posted by jdub297
Selective quotations don't help you. "Can affect ... ." and "potential ...human affect ... " are far from convincing.

Not a selective quotation at all, I can't post the whole doc in a quote and you suggested he misquoted - the words are pretty clear. Yes, scientists tend to use words that do not express absolute truth.

Do you think if they said 'will affect' and 'certain...human effect' you would be more convinced? lol

The article explains how the GCC and IPCC attempt to sway the opinions of scientists into their favor. Here's just a snippet and your link:

Yes, the IPCC is science by committee, and that is its one obvious failing leading to very conservative viewpoints and many disgruntled people.

I don't doubt that the article presented was overly balanced towards uncertainty. Firstly, that is the norm for industry funded shilling - the tactic of spreading FUD is well-worn. However, given the report was from 1995, a higher level of uncertainty was more justifiable. When I read it, I thought it wasn't too bad - some of it was a bit questionable in places, but much better than the denialist tripe that I see today.

Do you deny that solar activity is at a minimum today(Recall the 'Maunder Minimum' and 'Little Ice Age')?

It's pretty negligible. And?

Solar activity has been a minimal influence for around 50 years. Even these industry funded dudes knew the evidence showed it couldn't really account for warming even 14 years ago. if we enter a period of low solar activity, it doesn't mean AGW doesn't exist. It just works against it. Indeed, an LIA event would barely negate the warming of the last 100 years, and from the new baseline warming from AGW would continue. When solar activity increased again, well, you know...very toasty.

Would buy us some time, though.

Do you deny that the Antarctic ice cover is growing at the rate of 10,000 sq. km./decade?

You mean sea ice?

Of course, AGW scientists readily argue that growing Antarctic ice cover is "consistent with" AGW. Others argue that diminishing ice cover is "consistent with" AGW!

It's not inconsistent either way. It's still pretty cold down there and there are many variables in play. Many areas show big reductions in sea ice, others show bigger increases.

Science 15 February 2002:
Vol. 295. no. 5558, pp. 1275 - 1277
DOI: 10.1126/science.1065863
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports

Warming of the Southern Ocean Since the 1950s
Sarah T. Gille

Autonomous Lagrangian Circulation Explorer floats recorded temperatures in depths between 700 and 1100 meters in the Southern Ocean throughout the 1990s. These temperature records are systematically warmer than earlier hydrographic temperature measurements from the region, suggesting that mid-depth Southern Ocean temperatures have risen 0.17°C between the 1950s and the 1980s. This warming is faster than that of the global ocean and is concentrated within the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, where temperature rates of change are comparable to Southern Ocean atmospheric temperature increases.

The fact is that temps have been increasing down there, so what does it matter? Overall the southern ocean is warmer and air temps are warmer. Sea ice, overall, appears to have increased in the short term. Although longer term studies suggest it is lower than earlier in the 20th century. The areas which show melt and expansion fit the regional temps fairly well.

The increase in sea ice is not associated with an overall cooling trend. So it suggests another mechanism - a recent study suggests a consequence of the Ozone hole altering wind patterns.

With that type of logic, what is NOT 'consistent with' AGW?

That's fairly easy. Lots of clear predictions have been made as a result of AGW.

For example, warming stratosphere with warming troposphere would be inconsistent, rather than cooling stratosphere with warming troposphere?

If you do, congratulations on joining the true "deniers" of the AGW alarmists.

lol

And so we move from discussion of the tactics of deniers - clear acknowledgement of the basic science from their scientists which is ignored in the coalition's public musings, and removal of comments showing the vacuity of 'contrarian' explanations - to common think-tank talking points - slash and burn scattergun denialist FUD.

[edit on 24-4-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

Wow! What does the NYT say today?

But not long ago, many of today’s supporters dismissed the idea of tradable emissions permits as an industry-inspired Republican scheme to avoid the real costs of cutting air pollution. The right answer, they said, was strict government regulation, state-of-the-art technology and a federal tax on every ton of harmful emissions.

How did cap and trade, hatched as an academic theory in obscure economic journals half a century ago, become the policy of choice in the debate over how to slow the heating of the planet? And how did it come to eclipse the idea of simply slapping a tax on energy consumption that befouls the public square or leaves the nation hostage to foreign oil producers?

The answer is not to be found in the study of economics or environmental science, but in the realm where most policy debates are ultimately settled: politics.

www.nytimes.com...

Now, why would they say that?

Cap and trade, by contrast, is almost perfectly designed for the buying and selling of political support through the granting of valuable emissions permits to favor specific industries and even specific Congressional districts. That is precisely what is taking place now in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has used such concessions to patch together a Democratic majority to pass a far-reaching bill to regulate carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade plan.

Oh! So that explains why carbon trading works so well, just like SO2?

But despite its success in the relatively contained problem of acid rain in the United States, cap and trade has proved less useful in other environmental problems and has gotten off to a troubled start in Europe.

Even some early devotees of a system of tradable emissions permits believe that it will not work for carbon dioxide, by definition a planetary problem.

...

W. David Montgomery has spent much of the last three decades trying to figure out how the marketplace can deal with environmental problems that are caused by relatively few actors but have consequences felt globally.

He supported the acid rain trading program, but said it was based on “unique historical and economic circumstances” that did not apply to the much more difficult problem of carbon dioxide emissions.

Mr. Montgomery said Mr. Waxman’s proposal would ultimately act like a tax on carbon-producing industries, disguised by a complex cap-and-trade system.

“It is a steel fist of regulation covered by a velvet glove of emission trading,” Mr. Montgomery said. “Why not just impose a carbon tax?”

Oh noes!

(Have you seen 'simon-swede's' latest BBC posts? Of course you have. He and you share much the same outlook, no?)

If your 'scientist' advisors are wrong, in the minority, and ignore the obvious, do you advocate following them anyway because they say the 'right' things?

Does one follow misguided 'leaders?' Of course you do - -under your thinking.

Starting to look like the 'consensus' is unravelling and "Industry" is getting unexpected attention on the Hill, no?

Deny ignorance.

jw