George C Marshall Inst. GMI

---

no merri

tag zombied? capt 816

kind of faded for a while? GMI folded in late 2015,so Bradley recommended $50,000 in “seed funding” the following year for its “successor organization,” the CO2 Coalition. The coalition is led by a Dr. William Happer, a well-known climate change denier

soon & B paper B43 180

attacked oreskes okeefe and Feuter sp

---

In addition to providing the start-up funding for Big Green Radicals, Bradley gave $85,000 to the Capital Research Center (CRC), a group led by former Berman and Company employee Scott Walter. The grant was designated for “general operations,” but it may have been used to support the publication Green Watch. A background document on CRC states that, “Green Watch tracks the money flow to environmental nonprofits and critiques their positions, and those of their allies, including their policymaking ones.” (Capital Research Center GPR, August 19, 2014)

Since 2014, the Bradley Foundation has distributed numerous grants to discredit the vast amount of scientific research demonstrating the harmful effects of climate change. In 2014, it gave $65,000 to the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI), a right-wing front group largely funded by oil and gas interests. Newsweek called GMI “a central cog in the denial machine” in 2007.

GMI folded in late 2015,so Bradley recommended $50,000 in “seed funding” the following year for its “successor organization,” the CO2 Coalition. The coalition is led by a Dr. William Happer, a well-known climate change denier. “We’re doing our best to try and counter this myth that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. It’s not a pollutant at all,” Happer said at a Heritage Foundation event on energy and climate.

Another $10,000 Bradley grant in 2014 for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC) went to support its Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI). A staff recommendation notes that SPPI “has helped demonstrate that no real-world data confirms that floods, draughts [sic], or hurricanes are becoming more frequent or severe, as global-warming alarmists allege. Neither is there any real-world data that sea levels are about to rise precipitously, inundating the world’s coasted [sic] lowlands, as is also often alleged.” (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change GPR, June 17, 2014)

OMFG

rebranded: CO2 Coalition

Ebell looks to be in good company in the Republican nominee’s camp.

In August, Trump’s team announced Kathleen Hartnett-White as one of several new additions to its “economic advisory team.”

Hartnett-White is another who doubts the well-established link between fossil fuel burning and climate change.

In a column last year, Hartnett-White lauded the “environmental benefits” of fossil fuel burning, while claiming the evidence for climate change was waning.

Hartnett-White is director of an energy and environment project at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) — another group that has taken money from the Koch brothers.

In July, the TPPF released a “research booklet” written by contrarian Dr. Roy Spencer that attempted to undermine findings related to sea level rise, extreme temperatures, and other impacts from burning fossil fuels.

Hartnett-White is also an adviser to the CO2 Coalition — a group that includes extreme climate science denier Patrick Moore, who rejects any evidence for human-caused climate change.

NIPCC

NIPCC in Washington – April 7 to 10 Presentations by Lead Authors/Editors and Others Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change Volumes 1, 2 & 3 of Climate Change Reconsidered II The Physical Science, Biological Impacts, and Economics, Energy, and Policy Open to the Public Monday April 7 – Noon -- Competitive Enterprise Institute – Light Lunch (Seating Limited) Contact: Myron Ebell 1899 L ST NW Floor 12 Phone: 202/331-101 Tuesday April 8 – 8 am Breakfast at the Capitol Hill Club 300 1st St SE Phone: 202/484-4590 Contact: Aaron Stover Cell: 703/801-7916 11:30 Lunch at the Cato Institute – co-sponsored by the George C. Marshall Foundation 1000 Massachusetts Ave NW Contact at Cato: Rachel Goldman Phone: 202/218-4606 Contact at Marshall: Jeff Kueter Phone: 202/296-9655 Wednesday, April 9 8 am Press conference, National Press Club, Bloomberg Room Thursday, April 10 Briefings on Capitol Hill (Not open to the public) ################################################### 9th International Conference on Climate Change Press Release, The Heartland Institute, Mar 17, 2014 http://climateconference.heartland.org/ July 7 – 9 -- Las Vegas, Nevada Includes the Findings of the New Report of the Nongovernmental Int

4/15

---

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/237502-forecast-the-facts-merchants-of-smear

this piece is in response to a Congress Blog [piece by Sylvie Stein of Forecast the Facts that takes issue with O'Keefe's previous piece in the Contributors section.

Sylvie Stein's recent piece in the Congress Blog, "Don't help the merchants of doubt," tells a great deal about Stein and her organization. Stein and the authors of "Merchants of Doubt" are skilled in distortion and being practitioners of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, especially the rule to "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

It is telling that Stein wants her views and those of climate alarmists to be conveyed by the media, but not those of people who challenge them. What does that say about her organization's views of the Constitution and the importance of free speech to a free society? Movements to suppress free speech believe that the end justifies the means. That is unsettling.

he word "denier" has been used by some to equate skeptics of the climate orthodoxy to deniers of the Holocaust. That is shameless. Neither I nor those I associate with deny that climate change and global warming are real or that human activities impact climate. That is far different than human activities being the major cause of warming and extreme weather events like hurricanes.

Her attacks are based on "Merchants of Doubt" and an alleged "97 [percent] consensus" of scientists. That foundation shows the weakness of her case. The movie "Merchants of Doubt"is based on a book by Naomi Oreskes that defames and slanders the good names and reputations of three outstanding scientists who cannot defend themselves because they are deceased. The George C. Marshall Institute published a critique, "Clouding the Truth: A Critique of Merchants of Doubt" in 2013; another critique is "A critique of Oreskes et al. 2008." Truth and accuracy are victims of Naomi Oreskes's piece of work.

Using the "97 percent" canard typifies the tactic of repeating a lie until it is accepted. Surveys claiming the 97 percent consensus have been thoroughly refuted. The most recent survey by John Cook involved reviewing cited abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Professor David Legates and co-authors dismembered Cook's 97 percent in an article in Science and Education. They reviewed the same papers cited by Cook and found "only 41 — 0.3 percent — of the 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 (scientists?) expressing an opinion had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.

Stein's claims that "when CO2 levels have risen, so have global temperatures" or that the world has been warming rapidly are refuted by geological history, U.S. temperature records since the end of the Little Ice Age, satellite data and the most recent warming pause. Most scientists agree that a doubling of carbon dioxide would only raise temperature about 1 degree unless there is increased climate sensitivity, which has not been demonstrated. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) keeps reducing its "estimate" of sensitivity. The real issue is sensitivity; not carbon dioxide levels.

Stein attempts to use the ocean's storage capacity to explain the warming pause since 1998. But oceanographers acknowledge that good data on ocean warming have only been available for about 20 years. So her point lacks credibility. Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at MIT, observes that oceans have been warming since the end of the last glaciation over 10,000 years ago and will continue to warm until the next glaciation.

Finally, Stein attempts to discredit me by allegations about funding. As Ted Koppel told former Vice President Gore when he used the same tactic on ABC's "Nightline": "The measure of good science is neither the politics of the scientist nor the people with whom the scientist associates. It is the immersion of hypotheses into the acid of truth. That's the hard way to do it, but it's the only way that works." The Marshall Institute's publications are publicly available and have stood the test of time.

Stein needs to be reminded of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's (D-N.Y.) admonition that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts." Stein is very short on facts.

O'Keefe is CEO of the George C. Marshall Institute and president of Solutions Consulting, Inc.

---

energycentral 2005

William O'Keefe is the Chief Executive Officer of the George Marshall Institute. O’Keefe is also President of Solutions Consulting, Inc. He has also served as Senior Vice President of Jellinek, Schwartz and Conolly, Inc., Executive Vice President andChief Operating Officer of the American Petroleum Institute and Chief Administrative Officer of the Center for Naval Analyses. Mr. O’Keefe has held positions on the Board of Directors of the Kennedy Institute, the U.S. Energy Association and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and is Chairman Emeritus of the Global Climate Coalition.

The George Marshall Institute (GMI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 1984. Their mission is to encourage the use of sound science in making public policy about important issues for which science and technology are major considerations. Their current program emphasizes issues in national security and the environment. For more information, please visit: http://www.marshall.org/.

desmog uk 1/15

With the dawn on the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, fossil-fuel funded scientists would launch a full-scale attack against the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, finds the latest installment of DeSmog UK’s epic history series.

The impending Earth Summit in Rio could spell doom for coal and oil interests. So the industry’s hired scientists started to play louder to the sceptic tune.

Dr Fred Singer, then professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, led the charge as he brought together the few scientific sceptics there were to publish a book shortly before Rio: The Greenhouse Debate Continued: An Analysis and Critique of the IPCC Climate Assessment.

His think tank, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), also published a Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming attacking the Earth Summit.

The Heidelberg Appeal

Then in June, Singer launched his Heidelberg Appeal to coincide with the Summit’s opening. The appeal warned of the emergence of “an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress, and impedes economic and social development.”

It also accused the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of “pseudo-scientific arguments” and argued that “the greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology and Industry.”

Professional scientists dismissed much of Singer’s work because he was not actively researching climate science and had not published any papers in respected journals.

What Singer was doing however, was appearing regularly in the American press. He may no longer have been an active researcher who contributed to the scientific debate in the professional literature, but the daily media featured him frequently.

Intentional, Annoying Misrepresentations

Bert Bolin, IPCC founding chairman, acknowledged that Singer's book did raise some legitimate questions that were later examined by the IPCC. However, Singer also included a series of allegations that were demonstrably untrue.

Bolin recalled: “These intentional misrepresentations of the IPCC report were annoying, and almost all scientists that I have met considered Singer's activities during the early 1990's, and actually ever since, to be a systematic attempt to discredit the IPCC's efforts by making incorrect or misleading statements both verbally and in the popular press.”

Singer's friends at the George C Marshall Institute also launched a salvo against the IPCCclaiming that scientific models had “substantially exaggerated its importance” of climate change.

The report blamed changes in the heat from the sun for the recent rise in global temperatures - a theory that had been ruled out by scientists publishing in the most respected journals but that would nonetheless be repeated throughout the next quarter century by sceptics.

Moral Obligation

Climate-change denier Richard Lindzen, then a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), sent the report to President George Bush Senior with a covering letter using his academic credentials to lend weight to its findings.

“I thought it was important to make it clear that the science was at an early and primitive stage and that there was little basis for consensus and much reason for skepticism,” he told the *Scientific American* magazine. “I did feel a moral obligation.”

The energy industry also lobbied the IPCC directly. The Climate Council, the Edison Electric Institute and the National Coal Association wrote a letter to Bolin and submitted its own report.

Their complaints “all concerned procedural issues” according to Bolin. He noted: “The difference between the scientific, factual approach, on one hand, and this thinking by lawyers and industrial representatives defending special interests, on the other, was really no surprise.”

Up next: The DeSmog UK epic history series continues with a look at the outcome of the Rio Earth Summit - where participation was more symbolic than it was effective.

@Brendanmontague

---

risk ASSes

---

Chauncey Starr was born on April 14, 1912 in Newark (NJ).[1] [2] and died April 17 2007. He is recognised as the 'father' of Risk Analysis/Assessment, and as an important figure in the promotion of nuclear power

He received an electrical engineering degree in 1932 and a Ph.D. in physics in 1935 from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, and then became a research fellow in physics at Harvard University. Later he worked with Oppenheimer on the Manhattan project (atomic bomb development) and after the war he designed nuclear reactors, including the first reactor in space.

Starr was Vice President of Rockwell International and President of its Atomic International Division. In 1967 he became theDean of the UCLA School of Engineering and Applied Science. Two years later he published an article in Science magazine which promoted the concept of risk-benefit analysis in the regulation of dangerous products -- a concept which became popular with economists and with large corporations and trade groups having poisoning and polluting problems. This article played a foundation role in the creation of the Society of Risk Analysis [3] and led to consulting roles for industry groups [4] [5].

In 1972 he was recruited to establish the 'Electric Power Research Institute' (EPRI) which conducts research of different kinds (particulaly nuclear energy), while also becoming the electrical power industry's main lobby group. He was the EPRI's first president, and he coined the term "nuclear hypochondriacs" to describe those opposed to the use of nuclear technology. The announcement of his appointment said:

"Dean Chauncey Starr announces in late 1972 that he will accept a position as president of the Electric Power Research Institute effective Jan. 1, 1973. The Institute is a non-profit organization financed by all segments of the electric power utility industry to undertake technical research end development in the energy field and to help establish long range national plans on power technology." [6]

After Floyd L. Culler took over the helm, Starr became President Emeritus of EPRI; a position he held until his death.

Chauncey Starr was a member of the Board of Directors at the George C. Marshall Institute which is largely funded by the nuclear power and space-weapons development industries. Along with his old associate Frederick Seitz and many others at this Institute, he was a prominent climate-change denier. He was also a member of the Board of Science Advisors of S. Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and, like most other members of that board, he signed the LeipzigDeclaration on Global Climate Change. Since both SEPP and the EPRI receive extensive funding form the oil industry, it is strange that he signed a declaration starting with "As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems ..."

George C. Marshall Institute (GMI)

Background

The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) was founded in 1984 by William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz and Robert Jastrow as a “nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation to conduct technical assessments of scientific issues with an impact on public policy.” [1]

In 1989 at the same time it began a “Climate Change Policy Program,” the Marshall Institute released a report arguing that “cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases.” Although it was refuted by the IPCC, the report was used by the Bush Sr. Administration to argue for a more lenient climate change policy.

GMI has since published a series of reports and articles that attempt to discredit mainstream climate science and undermine climate change legislation such as the Kyoto Protocol.

The Marshall Institute's “Climate Change Policy” program was started in 1989 as a “critical examination of the scientific basis for global climate change policy.” Notably, “A major component of this effort is communicating the findings to policy makers, the media and the public policy community.” [2]

In a 2009 essay, former Executive Director Matthew B. Crawford had this to say about his initial experience with the Marshall Institute (emphasis added):

“… certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.” [3]

Newsweek has described GMI as a “central cog in the denial machine,” and Naomi Oreskes has said that the Institute has lobbied politically to create a false perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion. [15],[16]

Stance on Climate Change

“There remains considerable uncertainty as to how much the climate has varied regionally and globally on the decades-to-centuries timescale, or what caused those changes. Yet we need to know how natural climate fluctuations are caused in order to determine to what extent human activities have affected the climate system.” [4]

Funding

Media Transparency lists the George C. Marshall Institute's funding as follows [5]

Brady Education Foundation — $1,000
**Carthage Foundation** — $707,500
**Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation**— $30,000
**Earhart Foundation** — $270,000
Exxon Mobil— $640,000
**John M. Olin Foundation**— $350,000
**Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation** — $3,700,303
**Sarah Scaife Foundation** — $3,270,000

According to Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets, the George C. Marshall Institute has received$840,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.[6]

Initially, GMI had restricted its funding sources to private foundations and individual donors to avoid conflict of interest but in the late nineties, the Institute decided that “the limitation we had placed on our sources of funding no longer made sense,” and that “From now on the Marshall Institute will accept grants for general program support from corporate foundations and in some cases directly from corporations.” Its first-ever corporate donation was from the Exxon Education Foundation. [7]

Key People

Staff

**Jeff Kueter**— President.
Mark Herlong — Program Director.

James Fifield— Missouri State Defense and Strategic Studies Intern.
Jerry Yue Liu — Koch Summer Fellow.
Allyn Milojevich — Koch Summer Fellow.

Source: [8]

Board of Directors

**William O'Keefe** — CEO (GMI); President, Solutions Consulting, Inc.
Robert Butterworth — President, Aries Analytics, Inc.
**Gregory Canavan**— Scientific Advisor, Physics Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
**William Happer** — Chairman of the Board of Directors (GMI).
**Mark Mills** — Chairman and CTO of ICx Technologies.
John H. Moore — President Emeritus, Grove City College.
**Rodney W. Nichols** — Consultant on Science and Technology Policy.
Milan (Mitch) Nikolich — Executive Associate of CACI.
**Roy Spencer** — Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Source: [9]

Marshall Institute Fellows

Daniel Gallington — Senior Policy & Program Advisor.
**Eric Loewen**
Peter Marquez
John Sheldon
Eric Sterner

Source: [10]

Roundtable Speakers

Andrew Aldrin
**Bruce N. Ames**
Steven P. Anderson
Major General James Armor (Ret. USAF)
Lt. Gen. Brian Arnold (ret.) — Vice President, Space Strategy, Raytheon.
Charles S. Baker
**Sallie Baliunas**
**Timothy Ball**
**Robert Balling**
**Roger Bate** — Visiting Fellow, AEI; Director, Africa Fighting Malaria.
Richard Belzer — President, Regulatory Checkbook.
Michael Booen — Vice President, Advanced Missile Defense Systems, Raytheon.
**Peter Bradford** — Director, Anvil Mining Ltd.
Tommy Brazie
Steven Bucci— Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Homeland Defense and America's Security Affairs.
Richard Buenneke — Senior Policy Analyst, Aerospace Corporation.
Joe Burns — Managing Director, Flight Standards and Technology.
Lt. Gen. John Campbell, USAF (ret.) — Executive VP for Government Affairs, Iridium Satellite LLC.
**Gregory Canavan**
Michael E. Canes — Senior Research Fellow, Logistics Management Institute.
Joe Cassady
David Cavossa — Executive Director, Satellite Industry Association.
Dean Cheng — CNA Corporation.
**John R. Christy**
Thomas L. Clancy, Jr.
Angelo M. Codevilla — Research Director, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies.
Bernard Cohen
Roger Cohen
**Keith Cole** — (Lobbyist), Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, General Motors Company.
Douglas A. Comstock
Henry Cooper — Chairman, High Frontier.
Randall Correll — National Security Consultant, Science Applications International.
Andrew R. D'Uva — President, Providence Access Company.
Richard DalBello — Vice President, Government Relations, IntelSat General Corporation
Dorothy E. Denning
Uyen Dinh — Senior Director for Legislative Affairs, GeoEye, Inc.
LTG Larry Dodgen (ret.) — Vice President and Deputy General Manager of Missions' Systems Missile Defense, Northrop Grumman.
Everett Dolman
Jürgen Drescher
**Susan Dudley**
Brian Duffy
Lt. General **Michael Dunn** (ret.) — President and CEO, Air Force Association.
**John Foster**
Oliver W. Frauenfeld — Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research.
Robert Gallo
Lori Garver — Vice President, DFI International.
**Richard Garwin**
**Phil Gingrey**
**David Goodstein**
**Michael Gough**
**Daniel Gouré** — Vice President, Lexington Institute.
**David Graham** — Institute for Defense Analyses.
**William Graham**— Former Chairman of General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament.
**George Gray** — Executive Director, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.
**William M. Gray**
Kurt Hackmeier — Corporate Director, Air Force Space Programs, Northrop Grumman.
Hal Hagemeier — National Security Space Office, Department of Defense.
R. Cargill Hall
Robert Hart
Glenn Haskins — ALHTK Program Manager, Lockheed Martin.
Ronald Hatch — Dirctor of Navigation Systems, NavCom Technology.
**Steven Hayward** — F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow, American Enterprise Institute.
John G. Heidenrich — Senior National Security Analyst, Science Applications International Corporation.
**David Henderson**
Rear Admiral Alan B. Hicks — Commander & Program Director, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense.
**Steve Hill**— President, Global Analytics, Inc.
**Theresa Hitchens**— Director, Center for Defense Information, World Security Institute.
Kenneth Hodgkins
Martin Hoffert
**Peter Huber** — Senior Fellow, :{Manhattan Institute:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::{ for Policy Research:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:.
Peter Huessy — President, GeoStrategic Analysis.
Tim Hughes — Vice President and Chief Counsel, SpaceX.
Daniel Hurley — Director, Critical Infrastructure Protection, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Col. Kirk Hymes — Director, Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate.
Greg Hyslop — Vice President and General Manager of Missile Defense Systems, Boeing Company.
Gerry Jansson — Director, Space Segment Development, INTELSAT General.
Dana Johnson — NorthropGrumman Analysis Center.
**Robert Joseph** — Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
**David Kay**
T. S. Kelso
Chris Kemp
Adam Kieper — Managing Editor, The New Atlantis.
David Kier — Vice President, :{Lockheed:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::{ Martin Corporation:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:.
Larry Kumins — Vice President for Research and Analysis, EPRINC.
Marc Landy
Lee Lane — Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute.
Roger D. Launius
Vice Admiral **Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.** (ret.) — Former Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.
**David R. Legates**
**Laurie Leshin**
James Lewis — Center for Strategic and International Studies.
**Richard Lindzen**
**Eric Loewen** — George C. Marshall Institute Fellow.
**Anthony R. Lupo**
Lt. Col. Robert Luzzi — Pentagon staff officer.
Gen. **Lester Lyles**(ret.) — Former Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, Department of Defense.
Andrea Maleter — Futron Corporation.
John C. Mankins — COO, Managed Energy Technologies; President of the Space Power Association.
Jeffrey Marsh
Gen. Robert T. Marsh (ret.) — Chairman, CAE Electronics, Inc.
**Stephen McIntyre**
**Ross McKitrick**
Col. Robert McMurry — Commander of the Airborne Laser Program Office, KirtlandAFB
Philip A. Meek — Associate General Counsel, Office of the Air Force General Council.
**Patrick J. Michaels** — Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute.
**Henry I. Miller** — Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
David Montgomery— Vice President, Charles River Associates.
Ed Morris— Executive Director, Office of Space Commerce, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Karl P. Mueller — Political scientist, :{RAND:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px"):}: Corporation.
**James Muncy**
Edward H. Murphy — Energy and economic consultant.
Stewart Nozette
**James O'Brien**
Wayne L. O'Hern, Jr. — Technology Strategies and Alliances, Inc.
James Oberg
Lt. General Henry Obering III — Director, Missile Defense Agency.
Scott Pace
William C. Patrick, III — Former Chief of Product Development Division, Agent Development and Engineering Directorate, Ft. Detrick.
Aristides Patrinos — President of Synthetic Genomics, Inc.
Gary Payton — Deputy for Advanced Systems, Missile Defense Agency.
**Robert Pfaltzgraff** — President, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis.
**Roger A. Pielke, Sr.**
Steve Pierce — Director, Decision Support Directorate, SMD Future Warfare Center.
**:{Norman :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}::{Podhoretz:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:** — Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute.
Robert Pollack
Eric S. Posmentier
Terry Pudas — Acting Director, Office of Force Transformation.
John W. “Jay” Raymond — B.G.
Robert Reese— Space Policy Analyst, Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Fred M. Reiff
Richard E. Rowberg — Associate Executive Director for Communications, Division of Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council, National Academies.
Charles T. Rubin
**Harvey Rubin** — Director for the Institute for Strategic Threat Analysis and Response.
Sally Satel— Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.
**James Schlesinger** — Former Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
**Frederick Seitz**
**Willie Soon**
**Roy Spencer**
H. Baker Spring— Senior Defense Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation.
Prasanna Srinivasan
**George H. Taylor**
Margo Thorning — Senior Vice President and Chief Economist,American Council for Capital Formation.
Richard Van Atta — Senior Research Analyst at the Institute for Defense Analyses.
John Vilja
Robert Walker— Chairman, Wexler-Walker Public Policy Associates.
Edward J. Wall
Michah Walter-Range — Research Analyst, Space Foundation.
Fred Webber— President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Jim Williams — Manager, Government and Military Accounts.
**Lowell Wood**
Brigadier General Simon P. Worden (Ret.) — Policy Analyst.
Larry Wortzel— Policy Analyst.

Source: [11]

Actions

May 21 - 23, 2012

The George C. Marshall Institute is listed as an official Co-sponsor of the Heartland Institute's Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7).

February 25, 2009

Institute Chair William Happer testified on climate change (:{PDF:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px"):}:) before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

In his opening statement, Happer admits “I am not a climatologist, but I don’t think any of the other witnesses are either.” He then goes on to state that “I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind,” comparing policies designed to reduce emissions to the U.S. prohibition of alcohol.

Happer uses other common skeptic arguments, saying that “The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide,” that “The climate has changed many times in the past,” that “IPCC summaries for policy makers are not dispassionate statements of the facts of climate change,” that “There is a delay between a temperature increase and a CO2 increase of about 800 years,” and, finally, “that moderate warming is an overall benefit to mankind because of higher agricultural yields and many other reasons.” [12]

December 14, 2005

The Marshall Institute published the book*Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming*, edited by climate change skeptic Patrick J. Michaels.

The book contains essays by skeptics Sallie L. Baliunas, Robert C. Balling Jr., Randall S. Cerveny, John Christy, Robert E. Davis, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels, Eric S. Posmentier, and Willie Soon. [13]

November 16, 2004

:{The :{GMI}: issued a press release regarding the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (:{ACIA}:) by the eight-nation Arctic Council.

GMI said that “This report makes numerous claims about climate change on arctic regions. Most of its claims are based on invalidated climate models and scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that bear little resemblance to reality and how the future is likely to evolve. And indeed, some of its claims about sea ice and ‘alarming’ warming are contradicted by other peer reviewed research and data.}:” [17]

April 12, 2004

The Marshall Institute sponsored a “Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy” where climate change skeptic David Legates presented on the subject of “Global Warming and the Hydrological Cycle.”

Legates suggested that climate change would be unlikely to increase extreme weather conditions, saying “… in many cases, the argument might be that in a warmer world, we will see fewer, not more, extreme events. This is actually good news, because it is extremes that cause the most economic damage and cause the most deaths.” [14]

1997

The George C. Marshal Institute co-published a document titled the “Oregon Petition” along with the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The petition claims to have collected 17,000 signatories that argue against the existence of man-made climate change and has been repeatedly used by climate change skeptics as proof that there is no scientific consensus on climate change.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz, a notorious climate change denier (and tobacco scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science. Also attached to the petition was what appeared to be a “research paper” titled: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”

The documents included with the petition had been authored by climate skeptics Art Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, and Willie Soon.

Related Organizations

Several people of GMI are also involved in the Science and Environmental Policy Project(SEPP):

Bruce N. Ames — Board of Science Advisors.
Charles Gelman — Board of Directors.
William A. Nierenberg— Board of Science Advisors.
Frederick Seitz — Chairman.
Chauncey Starr — Board of Science Advisors.

The now-defunct **Environmental Literacy Council (:{ELC:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px"):}:)** was set up by GMI's past executive director Jeffrey Salmon, and was run from offices next to the Institute.

GMI is also a member of the **Cooler Heads Coalition**.

Resources

“About The Marshall Institute,” George C. Marshall Institute. Accessed January, 2012.
“Climate Change Policy,” George C. Marshall Institute. Accessed January, 2012.
Matthew B. Crawford, “The Case for Working With Your Hands,” New York Times, May 21, 2009.
Climate Change Science,” George C. Marshall Institute. Accessed January, 2012.
“George C. Marshall Institute,” Media Matters Action Network. Accessed January, 2012.
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: George C. Marshall Institute, :{GMI:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px"):}:.
“A Note on Funding,” The George C. Marshall Institute. Archived September, 2002.
“Staff,” George C. Marshall Institute. Accessed January, 2012.
“Board of Directors,” George C. Marshall Institute. Accessed January, 2012.
“Marshall Institute Fellows,” George C. Marshall Institute. Accessed January, 2012.
“Roundtable Speakers,” George C. Marshall Institute. Accessed January, 2012.
“CLIMATE CHANGE” (:{PDF:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px"):}:), Statement of William Happer Before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, February 25, 2009. Republished by the George C. Marshall Institute.
“Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming,” The George C. Marshall Institute, December 14, 2005.
David Legates. “Global Warming and the Hydrologic Cycle: How are the Occurrence of Floods, Droughts, and Storms Likely to Change?” (:{PDF:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px"):}:), George C. Marshall Institute's Washington Roundtable on Science & Public Policy.
“The Truth About Denial,” Newsweek, August 12, 2007.
,” YouTube Video (starting at 30:30 minutes into speech). Retrieved January, 2012.
“:{INHOFE:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px"):}: :{QUESTIONS:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px"):}: :{SCIENCE:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px"):}: :{BEHIND:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px"):}: :{ARCTIC:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px"):}: :{REPORT:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px"):}:,” Press Release, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, November 16, 2004.
“George C. Marshall Institute,” SourceWatch profile.
“George C. Marshall Institute,” Wikipedia entry.
Chris Mooney. “Some Like It Hot,” Mother Jones, May/June 2005 Issue.

Tags:

George C. Marshall Institute

denierorgs

Marshall Institute

http://www.desmogblog.com/george-c-marshall-institute

berman draws on gcmi research

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/environmental-policy-alliance-berman_n_4913303.html

Swearingen also wrote an anti-LEED op-ed for Forbes in December 2013, arguing, "we're clearly not spending that money wisely."

A closer look at LEED Exposed's methodology reveals a significant omission. The report concludes that, as a whole, LEED-certified buildings in Washington, D.C., use more energy than buildings without the certification. But the analysis only looks at the energy use of buildings relative to size, or what is known asenergy use intensity.

EUI is only one of several recognized benchmarks used by building professionals to assess a building's efficiency, and looking at it in isolation ignores the importance of building density. Thus a large, abandoned building would score well for EUI, because its energy use is quite low relative to size.

"Their goal is just to confuse you," Scot Horst, the senior vice president of LEED at the U.S. Green Building Council, told HuffPost. Most Americans are unfamiliar with terms like energy use intensity, he explained, and may not fully grasp the complexities of assessing efficiency. EUI is "only a very partial snapshot of what's happening," according to Horst, and ignoring other measurements "leads to very unfair comparisons."

Groups like the American Chemistry Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represent the wood, plastics and vinyl industries, have bashed LEED in the past.

Swearingen told HuffPost that the alliance doesn't solely represent business interests, arguing that all Americans have a vested interest in affordable energy.

"Berman makes his money as a corporate hired gun, setting up front groups to denigrate public interest organizations that threaten his clients' bottom lines," Melanie Sloan, executive director for the nonprofit watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington told HuffPost. "I'm not surprised he's attacking groups and agencies focused on the environment, given the deep pockets of those interested in paying to stop climate change legislation and regulation."

"These methods of attack rely on the way people read media," Horst added. "They rely on creating confusion."

Manufacturing doubt around scientific issues and sowing confusion through the media is a well-documented industry strategy -- one that Berman has often employed.

Berman & Co. has previously attacked organizations like the Humane Society of the United States and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and campaigned against minimum-wage increases and unionization.

The Environmental Policy Alliance also ran a full-page ad in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, claiming that the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Food & Water Watch "are using scare tactics and junk science to push policies that increase the cost of energy."

"This feeble attempt at a smear campaign is a good reminder to always consider the source," an NRDC spokesperson told HuffPost. "As opposed to this newly re-named front group, we've been around for decades. We cite our research. We sign our names on our materials. And we don't lurk in the shadows because there's no reason to hide our good work to protect our air, our water and our communities."

popsci: Muller’s conclusion was most likely not what the Koch brothers had in mind. Last October, his team announced that the global mean temperature on land had increased by 1.6 degrees since 1950, a result that matched the numbers accepted by the mainstream climate-science community. “The skeptics raised valid points, and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago,” Muller told me. “Now we have confidence that the temperature rises previously reported had been done without bias. Global warming is real.”

Some conservative think tanks have since begun to soften their positions. Jeff Kueter, the current president of the George C. Marshall Institute, which has been advocating against mainstream climate science since the 1980s, told me in his office in Virginia last month that “climate change is not a hoax” and that “human activities undoubtedly have an impact on climate change.”

tipping pt?

The most egregious example of cooked intelligence was a study

underwritten in part by the API, Cooney's former employer. The study,

which purported to show that the twentieth century was not unusually

warm, was authored by two astrophysicists, both of whom were on the payroll of the George C. Marshall Institute, a climate-denial group

funded by ExxonMobil and now headed by Bill O'Keefe, Cooney's former

boss. The paper's publication in a minor German journal in January

2003 quickly created a scandal, with the editor in chief and three

other editors resigning in shame after acknowledging that the paper

was fundamentally flawed and should never have been published.

"It was sham science," says McCarthy, the Harvard scientist. "It's

almost laughable, except that this study was held up by the

administration as a definitive refutation of the temperature record."

But even as the paper was being discredited, it was causing great

excitement in the White House. When Kathie Olsen of the Office of

Science and Technology Policy forwarded the study to Cooney, he

responded with an enthusiastic, "Thanks, Kathie!" Six minutes later,

according to internal e-mails, the study was in the hands of Kevin

O'Donovan, who served as Cheney's point man on climate. The study

also grabbed President Bush's attention, as revealed in an e-mail

sent two days later to a high-ranking White House official: "Bob - if

you din't [sic] already have, this is the study the President was

talking about."

The study gave Cheney's office the quasi-plausible refutation of

climate science it was waiting for. According to a memo reviewed by

congressional investigators, but which the CEQ refused to make

public, Cooney was eager to promote the sham science. The study, he e-

mailed O'Donovan, "represents an opening to potentially reinvigorate

debate on the actual climate history of the past 1,000 years." The

paper, he added, "contradicts the dogmatic view held by many in the

climate science community that the past century was the warmest in

the past millennium. . . . We plan to begin to refer to this study in

administration communications on the science of global climate

change."

One e-mail exchange about the study underscores just how many

industry foxes were guarding the climate henhouse. When Matthew Koch (a White House energy adviser who today lobbies for API) saw the

study, he wrote to Cooney (the former API lobbyist who is

now "corporate issues manager" for ExxonMobil) and CC'd O'Donovan

(who now works for Shell Oil).

"What??!!" Koch wrote in mock disbelief at the study's claim that the

planet isn't really heating up. "I want to grow oranges in the

Arctic!"

Such joking aside, the administration continues to hold up the

discredited study as a counterweight to the IPCC's scientific, peer-

reviewed findings on global warming. Testifying before the House

Oversight Committee in March, Connaughton lauded the study as a "new

and major piece of science." His only regret, he said, is that "I'm

not a scientist, so I can't find it conclusive."

RS?

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

George C. Marshall Institute

From SourceWatch

This is part of the Center for Media & Democracy's climate change project.

This article is part of the Center for Media & Democracy's spotlight on front groups and corporate spin.

Not to be confused with the George C. Marshall Foundation

The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 1984 by physicists William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz and Robert Jastrow^{[1]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute#cite_note-0) to "encourage the use of sound science in making public policy about important issues for which science and technology are major considerations." The "program emphasizes issues in national security and the environment"^{[2]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute#cite_note-1), generally to the detriment of the latter.Template:Citation needed

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest: "The Marshall Institute investigates facts concerning global climate change. The Institute also studies the implications of the Kyoto Protocol upon national security. The Institute is partially supported by the Exxon Education Foundation and American Standard Companies."^{[3]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute#cite_note-2)

Contents[hide]

Think tank or PR shop?

In a 2009 essay, former Marshall Institute Executive Director Matthew B. Crawford, wrote that after he commenced with the group in September 2001

"...certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style â that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning."^{[4]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute#cite_note-3)

...

Funding

In its 2006 annual return, the Institute states that its total revenue for the year was $969,923 with total expenses of $877,156.^{[15]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute#cite_note-2006_IRS_Return-14) Of its program areas, it reported that $308,819 was on global warming work, $43,000 on general energy policy discussion, $148,729 on bio-terrorism, and $110,841 on missile defense system.^{[15]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute#cite_note-2006_IRS_Return-14)

The Institute received $ 7,178,803 in 105 separate grants from only five foundations between 1985 and 2006 [1]:

The George C. Marshall Institute no longer shows an overview of recent funders, but in 2000 ^{[16]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute#cite_note-15) they listed:

Petro-Dollars

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets lists the George Marshall Institute as having received $715,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.^{[17]^}(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute#cite_note-16)

This includes:

$50,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 1999 for "support for science and public policy education programs;
$50,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2000 for general support;
$60,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2001 for "climate change work";
$80,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2001 for "'global climate change program" in 2002; plus a further $10,000 for the Awards Dinner;
$95,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003 for Global Climate Change Program
$145,000 ExxonMobil Foundation in 2004 for "climate change" and a further $25,000 from Exxon Corporation for "Awards Dinner -- Climate Change Activities";
$90,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation for, according to the Institute's IRS return, "climate change" and a further $25,000 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "Awards Dinner and General Operating Support"; and
$85,000 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "General support and annual dinner" in 2006.

mashey

Founde r’s Award – who gets honored, who pays?

Unlike AnnapCtr, which seemed mostly to honor politicians, these honor more GMI people:

www.marshall.org/subcategory.php?id=45

web.archive.org/web/20061130000053/www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/383.pdf

―The Marshall Institute‘s Founders Award recognizes outstanding individuals for their contributions to science,

public policy, and public service. Previous recipients of the Founders Award include:

2004 ★ Dr. Frederick Seitz

2004 ★ Dr. Robert Jastrow

2005 ★ Dr. James Schlesinge r”

2006 President George W. Bush (he actually ended up not attending)

―to President George W. Bush to honor his contributions to American security and prosperit y.‖

web.archive.org/web/20070614210315/www.marshall.org/article.php?id=390

2007 Dr. David Abshire

2008 Dr. Bruce N. Ames

2009 Dr. John S.Foster, Jr.

web.archive.org/web/20061129235601/www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/387.pdf 2005 Awards Dinner:

―In hosting the 2005 Annual Awards dinner, the Institute was generously supported by the ExxonMobil

Corporation, The Boeing Company, TechCentral Station, UST Public Affairs, Frank W. Ward, Federal

Legislat ive Associates and Dunn's Foundation, and aided by the exemplary work of the Dinner Committee headed

by Senator Mike Enzi of Wyo ming and Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania.‖

Who are those other people?

UST Public Affairs is a lobbying firm, whose top activity seems to have been tobacco:

www.implu.com/lobby_client/1357

www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?lname=UST+Public+Affairs&year=2008

Federal Legislative Associates ―provides governmental and public relations services‖; O’Kee fe is a

member.

www.fedgovlink.com/members.shtml

Mike Enzi (R-WY) is ranked sixth-most conservative Senator by National Journal. His top industry

contributor is ―oil&gas‖:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Enzi

www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00006249&type=I

Curt Weldon (R-PA) was a moderately conservative Representative, and worked to promote national

missile defense, with strong ties to Boeing. Defense&Aerospace was #1 funder:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Weldon

www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00001535&type=I

www.marshall.org/article.php?id=667 2009 dinner announcement

www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/664.pdf 2009 dinner committee is interesting including representatives

from Ball Aerospace, Heritage, AEI, Marathon Oil, Boeing, and Mitre.

In [SAI2007] p.23, Said says ―Invitations – Good ones‖

―We were invited to participate in a workshop by the Marshall Institute – anti anthropogenic global warming.‖

...

GMI T$n – George C Marshall Institute (O6b, very influential for its size) 501(c)3

www.marshall.org was 1625 K St NW, Washington, just moved to 1601 N Kent ST #802, Arlington, VA

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute

www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36

web.archive.org/web/*/www.marshall.org/board.php

web.archive.org/web/*/www.marshall.org

mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/George_Marshall_Institute/funders 2 spellings

mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/George_C_Marshall_Institute/funders

dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/222/222569466/222569466_200812_990.pdf 2008

―Research & education in scientific develop ments affecting security of the United States.‖

www.marshall.org/category.php?id=6 says:

―The George C. Marshall Institute was established in 1984 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation to conduct

technical assessments of scientific issues with an impact on public policy.

In every area of public policy, from national defense, to the environment, to the economy, decisions are shap ed by

developments in and arguments about science and technology. The need for accurate and impartial technical

assessments has never been greater. However, even purely scientific appraisals are often politicized and misused

by interest groups. The Marshall Institute seeks to counter this trend by providing policymakers with rigorous,

clearly written and unbiased technical analyses on a range of public policy issues. Through briefings to the press,

publication programs, speaking tours and public forums, the Institute seeks to preserve the integrity of science and

promote scientific literacy. We publish reports, host roundtables, workshops and collaborate with institutions that

share our interest in basing public policy on scientific facts.‖

I‘d agree that ―even purely scientific appraisals are often politic ized and misused by interest groups‖, but

GMI itself has been a leader in doing exactly that for 25 years, funded by wealthy, very-conservative

family foundations, some of whose fortunes were built on oil (Scaife, Koch, Earhart) or chemicals (Olin)

very tightly connected to the more conservative side of the Republican party. In 2001, GMI started

receiving funding from ExxonMobil, probably connected with the same campaign laid out in GCSCT.

The reader might study the following and as many links as they need to decide if that is fair.

Activities: GMI1990, SIPP1993, A.Santer, OISM1998, GCSCT, GMI2002, GMI2003, A.Oreskes,

GMI2005, GMI2005a, A.HOCKX, A.Hockey, APS2009, A.GATE

www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/300.pdf Likely, Kueter or O’Keefe wrote that.

Organizations: (member) CHC; frequent cooperation with CEI

People: many connections, much of this report is about them.

Happer is the current Chairman of the Board, Canavan and Spencer are Directors, as was Starr. Sproull

was an associate of Seitz, and a GMI Director. Nierenberg was on the Board of Starr’s EPRI.

Baliunas and Soon have written papers for GMI, as have Spencer and Christy. . Singe r’s SEPP has

long been connected with GMI: Seitz was SEPP‘s Chairman, Nierenberg and Starr Science Advisors.

Rachel Schwartz /is on the staff, labeled Koch Foundation Associate.

Jeffrey Salmon, a PhD in World Politics, was a senior speechwriter for Caspar Weinberger and Dick

Cheney, then was GMI‘s Executive Director 1991-2001. He worked with the API to craft disinformation

strategy, GCSCT. He has written ―science‖ pieces for GMI and Heartland. In 2001, he was appointed

to a job at the DOE. In mid-2008, he ―burrowed in‖ to a civil service job in DOE.

GMI‘s President/CEO 2001-present is William O’Kee fe . He was Exec. VP and COO of the API with

API at least 1974-2001, was on the Board of CEI, and is Chairman Emeritus of the GCC. He was a

lobbyist for ExxonMobil and has written many ―science‖ pieces.

www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=83

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Petroleum_Institute

GMI President is Jeff Kueter, whose background was mainly in Political Science, and was Research

Director at the National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing (NACFAM). He writes ―science‖ also.

Crescendo to ClimateGate Cacophony V1.0 03/15/10

http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=43

GMI‘s priorities seem to be promoting missile defense, slowing environmental legis lation and supporting

oil interests, via numerous close ties to the Reagan and Bush administrations, lobbyists and conservative

politicians. For anyone associated with GMI to claim that it is unbiased and apolitical while mainstream

science is political, is …interesting. If it ever does any real science regarding climate, that is not apparent.

It certainly has political scientists and oil lobbyists writing ―sc ience pieces.‖ Since 1990 it has been an

effective focus for climate anti-science in Washington, DC. However, military and climate issues can

sometimes be connected via oil [KLA2008], given the strong mechanization of the US Armed Forces.

GMI was founded by 3 world-class, well-known, influential scientists, Robert Jastrow, William

Nierenberg and Frederick Seitz, origina lly to help the Reagan Administration sell ―Star Wars‖. In 1990,

they published Scientific Perspectives on the Greenhouse Problem [GMI1990], including a paper by

Spencer and Christy. The tobacco connection in Table A.2.1 is via Seitz.

[LAH2008, ORE2007, ORE2008] offer many useful insights, as GMI is in some sense the ―original core‖

of ideology-based climate anti-science, due to the scientific prestige and influence of its founders.

[ORE2008a] offers interesting early history (circa 1983) relevant to GMI. The Daily Princetonian‘s

article by Raymond Brusca is an interesting summary, with many comments from Happer.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506

[ORE2010] is an exhaustive, meticulously-documented history of GMI & Singer, especially the earlier

decades. It really helped me know where to look.

GMI was long financed by family foundations (A.2.1) but later, added ExxonMobil and perhaps others,

including aerospace. It has not released funding details for a while, but clearly got a funding boost in the

last decade, and has had a CEO from API.

GMI was long located on Washington DC‘s lobbyist-famous ―K Street‖, recently moved to Arlington, VA.

Matthew Crawford worked as GMI Executive Director for a short time (₅ months) starting 09/04/01.

His opinions later were interesting, and somebody might want to ask him more:

web.archive.org/web/20011214154524/www.marshall.org/CrawfordIntroduction.htm

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Matthew_B._Crawford

www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html?_r=3&em=&pagewanted=all

―As it happened, in the spring I landed a job as executive director of a policy organization in Washington. This felt

like a coup. But certain perversit ies became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason

backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organizat ion had taken certain positions, and there

were some facts it was mo re fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making argu ments I didn‘t fully buy

myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the

corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but

not indulge too much in actual reasoning. As I sat in my K Street office…‖

His boss would have been O’Kee fe.

GMI has long and strongly espoused free-market economics, for solutions to environmental and any other

problems, i.e. as opposed to government regulation of anything. As far as I can tell, the 3 founders had

strong conservative ideology, did not generally work for commercial companies, but for government, or in

university research jobs, often supported by government grants. As a long-time R&D (and venture-capital

related) person in profit-making industrial companies, especially in ultra-entrepreneurial Silicon Valley, it

seems incongruous to me for people to be constantly claiming the mantle of free enterprise when so much of

their careers have been so heavily-dependent on federal government funding.

GMI appears to be a think tank originally started for ideological/political reasons, but effective think tanks

often attract and compete for funding from others.

Crescendo to ClimateGate Cacophony V1.0 03/15/10

GMI Board. Political leaning?

On doing a donation analysis (as I did in [MAS2009]) for the 18 GMI Directors I could find, 15 donated.

One must be careful not to ascribe any view to any one person, unless perhaps they have a long, broad,

one-sided donation pattern. However, the totals are still relevant, especially when they look like this

univ pres iowa?

Jeffrey D. Kueter

Phone: 703.642.5407

Cell: 703.919.2853

Email: Kueter@marshall.org

690 N. Armistead St

Alexandria, VA 22312

Jeff Kueter

PROFILE

Senior management experience at public policy institutions with an extensive background of

leadership roles at volunteer, non‐profit organizations and possessing extensive ties to Iowa

alumni, the UIAA, and the University of Iowa. Demonstrated success at managing boards of

directors, non‐profit finances and fundraising; designing and implementing communications and

outreach plans; and crafting persuasive membership and issue advocacy campaigns.

EDUCATION

2005, MA in Political Science, Columbian College of Arts and Sciences, The George Washington

University

1996, MA in Security Policy & Science and Technology Policy Studies, Elliott School of

International Affairs, The George Washington University

1993, BA in Political Science (Honors), Minor in Economics, University of Iowa

WORK EXPERIENCE

President, George C. Marshall Institute (May 2002‐present)

Responsible for: Management of day‐to‐day operations, fundraising, and oversight of a

diverse portfolio of programs and projects; Maintaining and developing relationships with

funding organizations, members of the Board, think tanks, universities and industrial

organizations, members of the media and staff of government agencies and departments;

Designing annual operating budgets and managing operations to align with those budgets;

Serving as Treasurer with direct fiduciary responsibility for all aspects of the organization,

working directly with accountants on the preparation of Form 990 tax returns, state

fundraising reports, annual audits, and routine financial reports to the Board; Managing the

organization’s administrative affairs, negotiating contracts with vendors, and administering

the Institute’s payroll, benefit and human resource programs; Crafting the Institute’s public

positions, editing the Institute’s reports, papers, and other public statements; Designing and

implementing persuasive and effective outreach and public education campaigns utilizing a

broad array of communications tools; Working with Members of Congress and federal

officials to formulate public policy; and Managing teams of researchers and scholars.

Research Director, National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing (October 1999‐May 2002)

Responsible for: Designing, developing and implementing a policy research program focused

on economic and technological factors affecting the manufacturing sector and its

relationships with research universities and federal laboratories; Managed interdisciplinary

research teams, organized events to complement the research process; Translated the

results into policy recommendations and implemented the outreach strategy to

...

Notable Publications

A Framework for a New U.S. Energy Policy with William O’Keefe (Arlington, VA: George C. Marshall Institute,

December 2013)

“Adapting American Space Security Strategy” Defense Dossier, September 2013.

An Investment Strategy for National Security Space with John Sheldon (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation,

February 2013)

Climate and National Security: Exploring the Connection (Arlington, VA: George C. Marshall Institute, September 2012)

Do We Need a Code of Conduct for Space? Considering Recent Developments in the Effort to Change Behavior in Space

(Arlington, VA: George C. Marshall Institute Policy Outlook Series, February 2012)

“Missile Defense Futures: Appreciating the Role of Defense” in The Next Arms Race (Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies

Institute, 2012)

Rules of the Road in Space: Does a Code of Conduct Improve U.S. Security? (Arlington, VA: George C. Marshall Institute

Policy Outlook Series, April 2011)

The Loony Legacy of Massachusetts v. EPA (Arlington, VA: George C. Marshall Institute Policy Outlook Series, March

2010)

“The Dismal Economics of Climate Regulation” inFocus Magazine, Vol III, No. 3, Fall 2009

The Importance of Boost Phase Missile Defense (Washington, D.C.: George Marshall Institute Policy Outlook Series,

August 2007)

“China’s Space Ambitions—And Ours” The New Atlantis, Number 16, Spring 2007, pp. 7‐22

Congressional Testimony on "Weaponizing Space: Is Current U.S. Policy Protecting Our National Security? May 23,

2007

The Cruise Missile Challenge: Designing a Defense Against Asymmetric Threats with Howard Kleinberg (Washington,

D.C.: George Marshall Institute, May 2007)

Congressional Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, House Committee on Science and

Technology, March 28, 2007

“Crossing the Rubicon in Space Again: Iacta alea est”, (Washington, D.C.: George Marshall Institute Policy Outlook

Series, January 2007)

The Illusion of Energy Independence: An Assessment of the Current State of Energy Use, with William O’Keefe

(Washington, D.C.: George Marshall Institute, December 2006)

The War in Space Has Already Begun (Washington, D.C.: George Marshall Institute Policy Outlook Series, October

2006)

Politics and Science: Is Science Politicized? With William O’Keefe (Washington, D.C.: George Marshall Institute Policy

Outlook Series, May 2004)

Missile Defense: A Continuing National Priority (Washington, D.C.: George Marshall Institute Policy Outlook Series,

May 2004)

The Politicization of Science with Michael Gough (Washington, D.C.: George Marshall Institute Newsletter, January

2003)

Critical Infrastructures and U.S. Manufacturing: Assessing the Vulnerabilities to Disruption from Terrorism

(Washington, D.C.: NACFAM, January 2003)

Contributions of and Issues Concerning Small‐ and Medium‐sized Manufacturers in the Defense Industrial Base

(Washington, D.C.: NACFAM, June 2002)

International Vulnerability of Energy‐Intensive Industries (Washington, D.C.: NACFAM, May 2002)

Manufacturing Under Strategic Uncertainty: National Security Threats and the Nation’s Manufacturing Industrial Base

(Washington, D.C.: NACFAM, December 2001)

Federal Support for Manufacturing Science and Technology: An Analysis of the Federal R&D Budget (Washington, D.C.:

NACFAM, May 2001)

Contributions of Federal Manufacturing R&D: Case Studies (Washington, D.C.: NACFAM, May 2001)

Exploiting E‐Manufacturing: Interoperability of Software Systems Used by U.S. Manufacturers (Washington, D.C.:

NACFAM, February 2001)

Advanced Manufacturing Science and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) (Washington, D.C.: NACFAM, August 2000)

Advanced Manufacturing Science and Technology Initiative Technical Focus Areas (Washington, D.C.: NACFAM, August

2000)

Smart Prosperity: An Agenda for Enhancing Productivity Growth (Washington, D.C.: NACFAM, May 2000)

Decision‐Making Models in U.S. S&T Policy (Washington, D.C.: WNC, December 1999)

The Status and Direction of Current Policy for “New Energy” in North America (Washington, D.C.: WNC, November

1999)

Influential U.S. S&T Policy Documents: The Study of U.S. S&T Policy Making and Its Impact (Washington, D.C.: WNC,

March 1999)

Recent Developments and Current Status of U.S. S&T Systems, Policies, and Programs (Washington, D.C.: WNC,

February 1999)

Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) in the U.S. Federal R&D System: A Critical Analysis of

Roles, Uses, and Trends (Washington, D.C.: WNC, February 1998)

U.S. Government Administrative Reform: Evaluation of R&D Policies and Programs (Washington, D.C.: WNC,

December 1997)

Targeting National R&D to Promote Industrial and Economic Competitiveness: Identifying, Assessing, and Comparing

Critical Technologies in the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, and the European Union (Washington, D.C.: WNC,

February 1997)

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA): Assessing Defense R&D Contributions to the Development of

Computing and Communications (C&C) and Information Technology (IT) in the United States (Washington, D.C.:

WNC, January 1997)

The Current Mechanisms and Systems for Promoting Business Development in the U.S. University Environment

(Washington, D.C.: WNC, December 1995)

The Institutional and Regulatory Systems and Practices Affecting Science and Technology Activities and Research and

Development in the United States (Washington, D.C.: WNC, February 1995

George C Marshall Inst. GMI

Related Links

John Sheldon

KEY DEEDS

ORGANIZATIONS

SOURCES

KEY DEEDS

ORGANIZATIONS

SOURCES

George C. Marshall Institute (GMI)

Background

Stance on Climate Change

Funding

Key People

Staff

Board of Directors

Marshall Institute Fellows

Roundtable Speakers

Actions

Related Organizations

Resources

George C. Marshall Institute

From SourceWatch

Think tank or PR shop?

Funding

Petro-Dollars

Attachments