Small Group of US Experts insist Global Warming is not Manmade

[FVZA_Colonel]

Source: Agence France-Presse

by Jean-Louis Santini

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A small group of US experts stubbornly insist that, contrary to what the vast majority of their colleagues believe, humans may not be responsible for the warming of the planet Earth.

These experts believe that global warming is a natural phenomenon, and they point to reams of data they say supports their assertions.

These conclusions are in sharp contradiction to those of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which reached its conclusions using largely similar data.

The UN body of about 3,000 experts, including several renown US scientists, jointly won the award with former US vice president Al Gore for their work to raise awareness about the disastrous consequences of global warming.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071216/ts_alt_afp/usclimatewarmingdenial

[Xipe Totec]

1. Experts in what, anal-cranial impaction?

And why are these bozos getting press time?

[Fenris]

2. Okay, well, here's what I don't understand

Let's call global warming a - and keep in mind I can't find a better term than this - climatological shit sandwich - no matter where it comes from, it's still shit. Let us assume that while there is a consensus among most scientists that global warming is due to human activity, there is also a possibility it is not due to human activity. Well, there is no way of knowing which is actually true, is there? Regardless of the cause, is trying to cut back on greenhouse gas output really that horrible of an idea? Even if it did nothing to slow or reverse global warming, it would at least cut down on pollution and save our limited energy resources.

[defendandprotect]

35. Your conclusion that we have to fight pollution is correct --- however, confusing

an issue by skipping the reality of what scientists have been telling us since the mid-1950's . . . about GW and its cause is only to confuse ourselves.

What is polluting the environment is traceable and it's the burning of fossil fuels ---

If there is doubt--- it is so negligible that it is absolutely meaningless.
The concensus among scientists is now close to 95% on GW being man-made . ..
that's pretty much beyond unanimous.

And, yes --- the cause is part of the solution --- we have to understand our recklessness with
natural resources --- which, in fact, may actually be the earth's ballast????


Nationalize our oil --- and other natural resources--
and get ALL ELECTRIC CARS on the roads in 3-5 years ---

Subsidize both ends: mfg and purchase


let's go--

[Xipe Totec]

3. The Case of John Christy

A good example of the problem with an unwarranted focus on scientific dissenters is provided by the Republican adulation for John Christy, a professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Christy became a favorite of conservatives because he questioned whether global climate change is being caused by human activity. He made speechmaking tours around the country promoting his skepticism, received warmly at centers of elite conservative power such as the Cato Institute.

Conservatives who are reluctant to engage in the hard task of cleaning up the technology of energy production are fond of citing Christy's work, and do so as if his work alone disproves the huge mass of scientific research that supports the idea that global climate change is a result of human activity. When one conservative, for example, leaves a comment on Irregular Times about Christy's skepticism writes "Christy shows that there is dissent on global warming".

The truth is that no one ever claimed that there is no dissent on the issue of the human causes of global climate change. What is claimed by the vast majority of the scientific community is that the dissent that exists is not substantial or significant. Look long enough, and you'll find a scientist who will dissent from almost any major theory. That doesn't mean that the dissent is meaningful.

The mere existence of scientific dissent neither proves nor disproves nothing. It is the quality of dissent, and its ability to persuade the community of scientific peers, that matters. The clear fact is that John Christy's work has not been of the quality or the persuasiveness to make any significant impact on the scientific consensus that global climate change is happening, and that it is the result of human activity.

Excerpted from:

A Round, Warm Earth:
Debunking the Republican Denials of Global Climate Change

http://www.irregulartimes.com/onclimatechange.html

[roseBudd]

62. The debunkers like to cite a previous warming period, BUT the earth was not densely populated

during that previous warming period so the implications were entirely different. The ancestors of homo sapiens could starve, migrate, after all this preceded agriculture so they were in a position to just relocate and there was no recorded history to document the added suffering to what was undoubtedly already a brutal existense.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FVZA_Colonel]

7. "The Global Warming Swindle"

Are you reffering to the (relatively) recent British TV documentary of a very similar name as the one you gave?

[karynnj]

8. Did you lose your way to a conservative blog?

Carbon cap and trade can work to give power plants the incentive to use cleaner power production methods. It worked to decrease sulfur emisions. The Nobel Prize is not a sham - and the nations of the world do agree that there is a problem.

As to plotting only the last 200 years - it is valid that there is a significant trend in that time frame. Sorry, but I'll believe people like Jim Hanson of NASA speaking to various Senate hearings over Rush Limbaugh.

The other thing is what Senator Kerry said. He quoted the British Stern report that said that the cost of NOT working to slow and then halt global warming will in the future reach about 5% of the world's GDP each year. The alternative is to use about 1% of the world's GDP to act against global warming. If the people disputing global warming are right, we will have loss that money but will have cleaner air and water, which will lead to health improvements. In addition, we will be less dependent on an unstable middle east. The research and development of alternative more efficient technologies and products will create good jobs. Therefore, even if we're wrong, there is no downside to working to halt global warming. If however, we agree with you and decide there is no global warming and are wrong, the downside is catastrophe. (With apologies to the Senator, who said it far more eloquently.)

[Xipe Totec]

11. 200 years? try 650,000 years

Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.

That is the conclusion of new European studies looking at ice taken from 3km below the surface of Antarctica.

The scientists say their research shows present day warming to be exceptional.

Other research, also published in the journal Science, suggests that sea levels may be rising twice as fast now as in previous centuries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm


As for your so called experts:

David H. Douglass is an American physicist at the University of Rochester. Douglass is considered a global warming skeptic and his research appears to focus on the role of natural forces and the debunking of anthropogenic climate change. He is a harsh critic of Al Gore and other global warming popularizers and is known to end his talks with an image of the former vice president juxtaposed with the mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion in order to underscore his dislike of Gore's ideas. Douglass is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and the NY Academy of Sciences.

His field of expertise is not climatology, but Condensed Matter Physics. He is out of his element, and out of his league.

Christy I addressed in an earlier post.

[ideagarden]

32. as a note

I was referring to the actual recorded data written down and measured. Can you quote an error bar on the ice data? Didn't think so! Yet again bbc is quoted instead of a scientific journal. Keep trying and eat that can of wup-ass you opened!!!!!

[D23MIURG23]

44. Here you go.

The quotation seems to have come from

Technical Summary. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Which can be found on the following page: http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/publications.html

There are also 18 peer reviewed articles involving the scientist making the claim you are challenging. You may be interested to note that among them are two publications in Science, and one in Nature Reports Climate Change. Looks like you found yourself a real hack.

What was that about whup-ass again?

[D23MIURG23]

49. It also looks like he has submissions to Nature based on that work.

[Xipe Totec]

59. LOL! You want Seconds?

Your rebuttal on the fact I did not quote a scientific journal tells me several things:

1.- You were unaware of the bbc article.

2.- You did not read the article before replying (it is quoting the scientific journal Nature).

3.- Google is not your friend.

If I understand you right, unless the data was written down and measured in-situ, when the actual event took place, it's no good?

To satisfy your "scientific" standards, somebody would have to be there to measure CO2 650,000 years ago?

But you know that's impossible; after all, the earth was created 6,000 years ago...




:rofl:




Can I quote an error bar?

Uh, no I can't quote an error bar, any more than you can quote Marcel Marceau.

[D23MIURG23]

66. Looks like our denier got himself a tombstone.

Too bad if you ask me...

I was looking forward to the frantic attempts at rebuttal.

[sakabatou]

81. He did?

Aww, I was looking forward to more dumb crap from him :rofl:

[kestrel91316]

12. We have a hell of a lot more than 200 years of records, FYI.

But I guess they don't teach you that in "Christian" homeschooling or at Bob Jones University, do they?

Have you ever heard of ice cores? And sediment analysis? We have climate data going back hundreds of thousands, if not MILLIONS of years.

Go back to listening to Rush and Coulter and reading your bible or watching NASCAR or whatever it is that's impaired your ability to pay attention to what the hell is going on.

[CANDO]

82. They often state that they listen to Rush to find out what's "really going on"!

There is the problem.

[knight_of_the_star]

13. You forget one thing

Those past 200 years are the period of when humanity has industrialized and started having a MUCH larger impact on the environment than any other species in a much more comprehensive fashion. Simply put, what has happened in the past 200 years has never happened before.

[Xipe Totec]

15. By the way, is this yours?

you can have the left overs.

[greenman3610]

26. oh, yes the "Swindle" movie

As a Gore trained Climate presenter, I find it incredibly useful.
It has all the steaming pile of distortions, half truths, and outright
fabrications in one place where we can take them apart. In fact,
I use clips from it to great effect in my talks, since it so
clearly illustrates not just the ignorance, but the dishonesty of
climate denialists.

For starters, check out this dissection of the producer for
Australian TV

http://www.desmogblog.com/video-abc-australias-tony-jones-dissects-debunks-martin-durkin

if you enjoy watching the wings pulled off flies, this total demolition of the
poor wretch's credibility will be your cup of tea.
Anyone can read the retraction of one of the experts that
appears in the film Carl Wunsch, who said his words were
edited to be exactly the opposite of what his true position is.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

A Danish Scientist whose work was quoted in the film
also complained of having his work needlessly distorted.

As far as Singer, he spent the 80s in the employ of tobacco
companies, telling us that smoke was good for us, and the
90s writing pieces for the Wall Street Journal telling us that
there was no such thing as warming. Now he says, of course
its warming, I knew that, but we aren't doing it.
Cristyung is trying to resuscitate his reputation from the
drubbing its taken for his soundly discredited satellite data,

I just don't have time to do justice to this right now, but
I will return to the thread tomorrow. This nonsense is has gone
on long enough, and it is my great pleasure to tear apart these
dittohead distortions.
so far trashed by 3 peer reviewed studies in Science.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[D23MIURG23]

65. Looks as though Singer is also the senior author of the paper in the Yahoo article.

See post #25

[ideagarden]

29. The insanity of the replies to my fist post

1) I never said global warming or global climate charge didn't exist

2) I said cap and trade is a hedge fund tool to make money

3) 1 million years of climate data is still only 1% of the data for earth's history, you cannot construct a predictive method based on that data alone.

4) Black box climate simulations are prone to error and are fare from exploring the depth of parameter space in the simulation.

5) The insanity is as such: You attacked a skeptic with hate, discredited a particle physicist (who might know how the sun works), forgot that many of the so called experts are no more than clerks or secretaries for the IPCC. You have also ignored who I might be. For all any of you know I might have written for the IPCC or be capable of doing so.

And for those calling me a conservative RL watcher etc. Shame on you!! Period!. Your so obsessed w/ Gore you've lost sight of a lot and only lashed out with hate. Don't miss the forest for the trees. You forgot science is deeper than reading Wikipedia for a summary of the IPCC. Go and read "Nature" this past year. For those who don't know, it is one of the most respected scientific journals at the moment and look for articles about climate change. Not all of them support Gore's CO2 assumption, a lot of them use black box models, some of them even give answers to why earth's ice is melting (completely unrelated to a warmer earth btw).

Answer me this "Gore-smart" people:

1) What is the sole source of energy coming to planet earth?

2) What is a green house gas and why would it matter if there was twice as many ppms? Does it act catalytically?

3) What in the galaxy has an effect on the charged particles in the atmosphere?

4) Above all else don't trust me, Gore or the IPCC. Science is about discovery, not mouthing someone else's ideas.

[D23MIURG23]

39. A short response -

You are quite vehement in your skepticism. Might I ask you why? Is there a particular reason for the level of emotion in the above post? I am skeptical of plenty of claims in my field, but I usually react by simply asking probing questions or constructing counter arguements rather than throwing tantrums.

If you actually are a chemist (which I doubt, but maybe you can prove me wrong by listing your degree, name, and granting institution so that we can cross check) you would know that altering the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would alter the heat capacity, and thus change the the way it retains heat from the sun. Catalysts alter the rate of a chemical reaction by lowering the activation energy - that has nothing to do with CO2 or greenhouse gasses as far as I can tell.

Finally -

5) The insanity is as such: You attacked a skeptic with hate, discredited a particle physicist (who might know how the sun works), forgot that many of the so called experts are no more than clerks or secretaries for the IPCC. You have also ignored who I might be. For all any of you know I might have written for the IPCC or be capable of doing so.

And your point is?

Micheal Behe, and Jack Dembski also might be capable of understanding biology and why evolution is such a powerful tool for the study of it, but instead they fall prey to their own overwhelming ideological biases, and are thus carried away into charlatanry. This despite thier obvious intellegence and advanced degrees. If you want your skepticism and the science backing it validated, you would be better off posting some links to peer reveiwed articles than droping designations like "chemical biologist". Ive seen one such article - mentioned in the yahoo report above. Can you produce anymore?

[skids]

48. Answers...

1) The primary source of energy is solar radiation. It's not the soul source. There's radiation other than solar. However, it has been amply demonstrated that neither solar radiation nor gamma radiation can account for the warming. We are simply keeping more heat. If you believe otherwise, you are way behind the current state of the research.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/#more-412

2) If you would like to understand how greenhouse gas on a physical level, I suggest using this article as a starting point.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

3) See #1.

4) Is not a question.

[bean fidhleir]

67. You're confused about what's important

Yes, 'cap & trade' is a scam.

Yes, computer predictions from simulation of certain kinds of data--the outcome of chaotic dynamics, especially--tend to be rather inaccurate.

Yes, Earth has been around longer than 1M years and there have been very hot periods before now.

HOWEVER, the human species and its precursors have only been around for fewer than 4M years. Australopitecus afarensis appears in the fossil record on the order of 3.9M years ago. Our own species, Homo sapiens, has been here for perhaps 1.3M years.

How well are we adapted to life in a greenhouse environment of substantial desertification and depleted oceans? Answer: we're not.

So the real question is: do we try changing our behavior in the hope that we can reverse what's happening, or do we just shrug and say 'Nope, it's not us, it's Natural Forces and therefore we're all screwed' ?

It seems to me that the sensible thing to do is hope that we are responsible and therefore have a hope of reversing the changes. How about you?

[jpak]

37. Come on Flat Earth Bush supporters - let's here it for ChimpCo doctored pseudoscience

And ignore all peer reviewed climate studies...pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Ignis]

45. Flat Earthers deserve equal time in the classroom!

You just can't make this stuff up, it's so bizarre. :)

[Dark]

72. Did you read the article?

The first half of it lays out how the VAST majority of scientists are saying Climate Change is happening.

Then it talks about a few people who are saying it isn't. Scientific consensus is what matters.

[Zhade]

80. Fuck off, you lying nazi asshole.

NT!

[Harper_is_Bush]

90. the "scientist" who claims cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer makes a report...and you

go into a nonsensical froth, blurting out a wack of global warming denial ad hom attacks and bad facts.

Do you truely believe the nonsense you have posted? Do you really think "The Global Warming Swindle" is legitimate? Don't you know it's being investigated by the UK broadcasting watchdog, and that the producer was forced to apologize for a similar documentary full of misleading information?

Buddy, every single one of the dozens of scientific academies and societies in the world agree that global warming is happening and human activity is causing it. Sun spot, earth tilt, all that shit is understood and factored in.

Put down the denial Kool-Aid. I know you're afraid, but believe me, it's better to face reality than rail against it.

[ingac70]

5. Let me guess...

"experts" on the payroll of oil companies?

[catnhatnh]

6. That would be a "group" of 2 named persons...

vs the 3001 winners of the Pulitzer prize. Do any of the "group" identify who signs their checks???

[PSPS]

9. A "small group" of maybe three? And this is even worth printing?

We could easily find a larger "small group" of people who think the earth is flat, or we never went to the moon. Does the press bother creating another fake "controversy" with them? No. Why? Because they don't buy ads in the press.

[humbled_opinion]

10. What small group is that the Bush Administration? n/t

[denverbill]

14. Remember the tobacco-company sponsored 'scientists' that insisted for years smoking wasn't that bad

I guess once the tobacco companies finally conceded, the 'scientists' found new jobs working for coal mining companies, oil companies, and power companies.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

31. The big difference?

The oil companies have billion (if not trillions) more at stake than the tobacco companies. They will fight to the death.

[defendandprotect]

40. ...in fact, they "recommended" smoking for stress, etc. . . !!!

Congress knew, of course, and did nothing --- !!!

[rockybelt]

16. First question:

This small group of "experts" consists of who?

I bet whichever foundation it is that these experts belong to are about as far right as you can get.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

17. A Partial List of Experts...

Robert E. Shell
Lucius Exxon III
Alphonse Chevron
Newton G. Mobil

[Xipe Totec]

18. You forgot

B.P. Richfield

[defendandprotect]

42. Usually they find that they are linked one way or another with oil industry $$ ---

Because if they are that off the trail as scientists, I would think they'd be unemployable !!!

[leftchick]

58. they list three in the article

all connected to EXXON...http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

[Clanfear]

19. The science supporting anthropogenic GW is a weak case.

I believe in AGW, but the supporting evidence is rather weak scientifically. I have wanted it to be stronger, but it just isn't there. What we have exposed is our vast lack of comprehension of the climate forces. I believe it is our own limitations, but as to what we have now we are basically guessing as far as solid proof goes.

[yardwork]

21. What are your credentials? Is your opinion more expert than those of thousands of scientists?

[Xipe Totec]

24. Post your facts; let's see what you got

other than an opinion.

[defendandprotect]

36. GW is changing "climate forces" --- El Nino/ La Nina used to be once every 1,000-2,000 year events!

Wind directions --- and salt water being mixed with fresh water --- some of the additional problems.

[jpak]

38. yeah - here's yer weak case for AGW

J. E. Harries, H. E. Brindley, P. J. Sagoo, R. J. Bantges (2001). Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature 410: 355 - 357

T. P. Barnett, D. W. Pierce, R. Schnur (2001). Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans. Science 292: 270-274.

S. Levitus, J. I. Antonov, J. Wang, T. L. Delworth, K. W. Dixon, and A. J. Broccoli (2001) Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System. Science 292: 267-270.

D. J. Karoly, K. Braganza, P. A. Stott, J. M. Arblaster, G. A. Meehl, A. J. Broccoli, and K. W. Dixon (2003) Detection of a Human Influence on North American Climate. Science. 302: 1200-1203

B. D. Santer, M. F. Wehner, T. M. L. Wigley, R. Sausen, G. A. Meehl, K. E. Taylor, C. Ammann, J. Arblaster, W. M. Washington, J. S. Boyle, and W. Brüggemann (2003) Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes. Science. 301: 479-483

P. A. Stott, D. A. Stone and M. R. Allen (2004) Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003. Nature 432: 610-614

J. Hansen, L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G. A. Schmidt N. Tausnev (2005) Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications. Science. 308: 1431 – 1435

T. P. Barnett, D. W. Pierce, K. M. AchutaRao, P. J. Gleckler, B. D. Santer, J. M. Gregory, and W. M. Washington (2005) Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans. Science. 309: 284-287

M. Lockwood and C. Frohlich (2007) Recent oppositely directed trends in solarclimate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proc. R. Soc.doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880 Published online

:rofl:

[D23MIURG23]

50. Nice list. n/t

[Sabriel]

20. So much for the "Stopped Clock" Theory

And I guess they're no longer "experts," as a result of this statement.

[yardwork]

22. The article names the three "experts." I would bet anything they receive gas/oil funding.

[Occulus]

86. You would cash in

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3103864&mesg_id=3104262

[postulater]

23. Reid Bryson was my meteorology teacher

at UW Madison in 1969. He is highly respected in the field of climate change so it was interesting to find out that he thinks CO2 emissions are less important than water vapor changes and that the CO2 changes are not man-made.

Personally I think it is wise to do what we can as a species to promote the survival of our ecosystem. I've noticed significant decline in some bird species since I was a teen. If there is something we can do to help preserve them then I'm in.

Link to Bryson
<http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/contact/bryson_reid.php>

[ideagarden]

33. ahhh refreshing

Preserve life as we know it... much better than trading carbon if you ask me.

[D23MIURG23]

41. Life as we know it is going anyway.

You are a chemist right? Maybe you can tell me what a hydrocarbon is and where we get most of the ones we burn in our engines. Is that a renewable or non-renewable resource?

I eagerly await your "skepticism".

[Yupster]

89. I feel the same way postulator

We know the earth has had very many climate changes over the eons, and some of them have happened quite quickly and disastrously.

So, we know we're contributing to global warming through our industrialization. We also know the earth has been generally warming since the last ice age ended. So which is more important?

Who cares. Things are changing quickly and for the worse.

Let's do all we can to ameliorate the problem. We can agrgue who's fault it was later.

[Harper_is_Bush]

93. well, sorry I had to be the one to tell you this, but the guy has hitched his wagon to the liars

club. I mean, Fred Singer? Come on.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. I call bullshit!

Nowhere in the article is the size of the "group" mentioned.

Only one detractor is mentioned by name: Fred Singer.

A single person is not a group.


:screamtotheheavens: :mad:

[D23MIURG23]

51. Here is the paper they are talking about, and the 4 experts who wrote it:

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (p n/a)
David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/117857349/PDFSTART (the article is behind a pay-wall)

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/4735/home

The journal is International Journal of Climatology

It might be interesting to look into the background of these guys, but I'm signing off for the night. Perhaps I will do so tomorrow if no one else does.

[leftchick]

60. EXXON gives them money to write this

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

[D23MIURG23]

61. Here are 3 of our 4 "experts":

S. Fred Singer
HeartlandGlobalWarming.org expert
Source: Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org

John Christy
HeartlandGlobalWarming.org expert
Source: Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org

David H. Douglass
Contributing writer
Source: Heartland website 10/01/04

And selected funding for their research:

FUNDING
Heartland Institute has received $791,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1997
$unknown Mobil Corporation
Source: Heartland material, present at 3/16/97 conference

1998
$30,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list

2000
$115,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001
$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report

2002
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

2003
$7,500 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
19th Aniversary Benefit Dinner
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2003
$85,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2004
$10,000 Exxon Corporation
Climate Change Activities
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2004
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change Efforts
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2004
$75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2005
$29,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2005
$90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2006
$90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

2006
$25,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Anniversary Benefit dinner $10,000 General operting Support $15,000
Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

2006
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Anniversary benefit dinner
Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

2006
$15,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
general operating support
Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

2006
$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
general operating support
Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

[progressivebydesign]

88. Thanks, I knew there was oil money dripping from this report! n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

63. 3,000 vs. 4. I stand corrected.

No bullshit here.

[D23MIURG23]

64. Yeah, it would seem they have a lot of convincing to do. n/t

[TrogL]

27. It's really quite simple. Go visit the Athabasca glaciers

They have photographs for every year showing the retreat of the glaciers. In years of high carbon production (eg. WW II, various industrial booms) the glaciers retreated faster than in years of low carbon production (the Great Depression, various recessions).

Here's some air photos but not the complete set.

http://airphotos.nrcan.gc.ca/photos101/athabasca_glacier_e.php

Here's a fuller explanation. http://www.socc.ca/glaciers/glaciers_hist_e.cfm

[ideagarden]

34. why black and white

Where was the seasonal date stamp? Why only a select number of years?

[Ignis]

46. "why black and white?" -- you can't be serious! (nt)

:rofl:

[Yupster]

95. I was there a year ago

They had pictures of the glacier's retreat all the way back to the 1800's.

I guess if they had cameras, they could have pictures of the glacier's retreat ever since the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago.

I didn't look at comparisons of the retreat from one 20 year period to the other. It just looked like the exhibits showed a pretty steady retreat over more than 100 years.

To me it's all pretty clear. The ice age ended 10,000 years ago and the earth will get generally warmer until the next ice age starts. Meanwhile, industrialization has sped up the process.

How much is natural and how much is man made? To me it doesn't matter. Our world is changing, and it's already causing dramatic problems. So let's stop arguing about who's fault it is and start doing something to ameliorate the results.

[NickB79]

28. I've heard morons like this before on RW radio

When someone points out that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have almost doubled in the past several centuries, they blame oceanic CO2 release as the culprit.

The problem? The ocean is becoming more acidic: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/16/5852/

What does this signify? Well, it shows that, rather than releasing CO2 like these skeptics state, the oceans are actually absorbing CO2 at an incredible rate. When CO2 dissolves into seawater, it creates carbonic acid. Increasing carbonic acid (duh) increases ocean acidity. If the oceans were venting gigatons of CO2 naturally into the air, we would see the oceans becoming more basic.

[defendandprotect]

43. We're at a point where the assurity of its being man-made is at 95% --- !!!

That's beyond a concensus of scientists --- it's an unbelievable number ---

and I would suggest that it's a waste of our time to try to deal with flat-earthers who

want to r-w game-play on this issue.

[Zorra]

47. "This message has been approved by the Republican Flat Earth Society.

We maintain the firm belief that Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and Darwin were totally wrong."

For more information, visit www.ElmerGantry.con

This advertisement sponsored by Giganticus Monopolated Oil Company.

[Up2Late]

52. Why do they keep calling them "Experts"?!?!? Please, at least call the "so-called Experts" or...

...Fools or just the good old fashion "Nuts!"

There are always a few idiots among the "experts," just like when Trident Gum says 4 out of 5 Dentists agree... or 9 out of 10 Experts agree...!:banghead: :argh:

[Lorien]

53. And just how much money did this tiny group of "experts" get from Exxon-

Mobile? Was it the customary ten grand?

:eyes:

[D23MIURG23]

71. $791,500

In total to the organization 3 of them work for since 1998. See post #61. No word on what any of them may have gotten/continue to get under the table.

[ORDagnabbit]

54. They're not experts and they're funded by exxon

Like Fred "cigarettes arent bad for you" Singer..

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:_Fred_Singer

http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer-one-whopper-on-top-of-another

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/

these charlatans are all hacks bought and paid for by exxon.

[OneBlueSky]

55. the environmental equivilant of Holocaust deniers . . .

they don't deserve a place at the table because the evidence of manmade global warming is so overwhelming -- and becomes moreso every day . . .

[dipsydoodle]

56. Ex perts

Ex as in has beens and spurts as in drips occasionally especially whilst under pressure.

Do they also believe the earth to be flat ?

[leftchick]

57. This "group" Gets Money From EXXON!

I am shocked I tell ya! :eyes:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

It would be really nice if for once the forth estate would do their fucking job. Just once.

[Homer Wells]

68. Dig into the personal qualifications and affiliations

of these "Experts(?), and , dollars to doughnuts, one will find ties to the agencies and entities that seek profits over the well being of the planet and the occupants of said planet.

Nuff Said!

:grr: :nuke:

[scipan]

69. Everything you ever wanted to know about this so-called paper

The shortest answer: It did manage to get published in a respectable journal, but it failed peer review.

A very short answer:
Richard Ordway says:
Any real scientist, ahem, includes error bars in their projections because of possible variables. The study does not include them. If it did, or they were honest enough to, they would fit the real-life records (enough to overlap the two records) and be a non issue.

Secondly, this study is dishonest and does not show all the evidence available (v1.3 and V1.4)…boing…this paper has just failed peer-review. Science is an *open* process and you just don’t cherry pick or real scienists will correctly invalidate your results.

Third, with this omitted data, the computer models agree with the actual data (enough for it to be a non-issue).

Fourthly, the study does not honestly work out the error bars for the models themselves by giving them reasonable uncertainty for accounted-for unknowns such as El Nino (Enso) and other tropical events.

...
In other words, this study is a strawman and the authors know it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/#comment-75649

And for a more more detailed answer, with pictures showing just how small a difference between the models and the real life data is:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/#comment-75649

Further, their press release makes claims that are far, far beyond what is in their paper. They actually claim to have shown CO2 warming is negligible and AGW is a myth. These "scientists" are tools.

[Xipe Totec]

73. I can't wait for AFP to publish an article debunking them

:popcorn:





I may need a lot of popcorn, 'cause it's going to be a loooong wait.



PS: Thanks for the research :applause:

[0rganism]

70. Fred Singer is at it again

He used to be a respected scientist. Now he's a paid industry whore. His last high-profile gig was shilling for the tobacco industry, they fired him because he was too crazy/senile to be an effective spokesman.

[leaninglib]

74. It really doesn't matter that there are other opinions--they are not welcome.

The sheeple have bought the man-made GW thing hook, line and sinker and off they march, like lemmings into the sea.

I suspect that many politicians on both sides are skeptical; but, they are politicians. They do not need a GW expert to tell them which way the wind is blowing.

[Xipe Totec]

76. lemmings into the sea?

You crack me up!


:rofl:

This is precisely what we are trying to avoid.

It is the GW deniers, such as yourself, who are blindly jumping into the sea, eyes closed, repeating the mantra:

It's not our fault, It's not our fault, It's not our fault, It's not our fault....

[yellowcanine]

77. I agree but the GW deniers are more like children following the Exxon/Mobil Pied Piper

Not to mention that paragon of scientific analysis, the Western
Coal Burners(Fuel) Association.

[leaninglib]

85. Exxon-Mobile and the WCBA have done more for America

than the United Nations has done or will do. If fact, in all likelihood you are using electricity produced by coal to browse this board.

[NickB79]

99. Thank God Exxon is gouging us with $3/gal gasoline

If it weren't for their highway-robbery prices, I'd have to worry about all that cash ripping the pockets off of my jeans.

Thank you, Exxon!

[leaninglib]

84. You are indeed cracking up.

And I wouldn't classify myself as a "GW denier;" rather, I just haven't seen the evidence which establishes man-made GW as an absolute fact of reality. Nor has anyone else.

On the other hand, those who worship at the alter of MMGW remind me of Islamic zealots. They prefer to behead the skeptics than to examine an opinion that differs from their own. They are a rather closed-minded and backward thinking lot.

Follow along now, or you may become separated from the flock.

[Xipe Totec]

97. Not a GW denier? What a joke!

If you want to see proof, start by opening your eyes.

Your language reeks of denial; nothing but invectives and inflammatory accusations from you so far, without a single fact to support your position.

Islamic zealots? Who uses those terms outside a certain genre of AM radio commentators.

Talk about sheep? Sheesh :eyes:

[yellowcanine]

78. "Lemmings marching into the sea" is an urban legend, you know.

Promulgated by a Disney film, but nevertheless still mostly false. (Mostly in that lemmings do migrate when populations get too large and some do fall or get pushed into bodies of water - but there is no "marching into the sea" in a mass suicide).

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp

[Zynx]

75. It is true that there is possibly a natural trend at work as well.

However, we(humans) certainly are not helping matters.

[Zhade]

79. Small group of idiotic liars, maybe.

NT!

[Cass]

83. Whether its manmade or of natural causes, we have an

obligation to do something about it. This argument is getting old. They need to move on and start looking at what can be done to deal with this, regardless of its cause.

[Harper_is_Bush]

92. IT IS MANMADE. Don't cater to the deniers with that "either way we should do something" argument.

n/t

[Cass]

94. The cause doesn't change our obligations.

Thats what I think they should be told. They seem to have this undercurrent in their views that since, in their minds, it is natural occurrence we don't have to do anything about it. That's why I think they should be told that no matter what you believe to be the cause of it, we have an obligation to work on it. We know its man made, but they would be perfectly content to engage in this argument for decades thereby thwarting any meaningful solutions from coming forward. Granted, these deniers are such a small minority in the scientific community so work on this issue will come about with or without their input.

[progressivebydesign]

87. The real headline should have been "THREE experts... "

They keep trying, don't they... if we google those guys they probably get grants from the oil industry, as per usual with the flat-Earthers.

[Harper_is_Bush]

91. You consider Fred Singer, the guy who argues cig smoke doesn't cause cancer, to be an "expert"? n/t

[Didereaux]

96. Yes,yes and a small group of 'experts' have declared the earth flat! why post this shit?

[ItNerd4life]

98. They may be right. 95% of scientists can be wrong

Heck, here in Chicago 100% of the meteroligists can say it's going to snow and it will be sunny out. There is still a lot humans don't know about our environment. In the 70's it was the ice age we were told to worry about.

I DON'T CARE!

To me it's about respecting the environment. Pollution controls, carbon dioxide controls, and other types of controls are about treating the environment with respect. Who the hell knows what's going to happen? Nobody does, 50% of the time experts can't tell us what the weather is going to be tomorrow.

But what I do know is if you abuse mother earth, she will probably try to pay us back. Treat her with respect. If you do this, then global warming, pollution, extinctions, etc. all become mute points.