DENIER

originally this applied to people, but later expanded to major orgs

perhaps this content not much updated?

capt 1/16

see also tag see 2 7/16 for newer content

===

6/16 recap

The fossil fuel industry has spent many millions of dollars on confusing the public about climate change. But the role of vested interests in climate science denial is only half the picture.

Interest in this topic has spiked with the latest revelation regarding coalmining company Peabody Energy. After Peabodyfiled for bankruptcy earlier this year, documentation became available revealing the scope of Peabody’s funding to third parties. The list of funding recipients includes trade associations, lobby groups and climate-contrarian scientists.

This latest revelation is significant because in recent years, fossil fuel companies have become more careful to cover their tracks. An analysis by Robert Brulle found that from 2003 to 2010, organisations promoting climate misinformation received more than US$900 million of corporate funding per year.

However, Brulle found that from 2008, open funding dropped while funding through untraceable donor networks such as Donors Trust (otherwise known as the “dark money ATM”) increased. This allowed corporations to fund climate science denial while hiding their support.

The decrease in open funding of climate misinformation coincided with efforts to draw public attention to the corporate funding of climate science denial. A prominent example is Bob Ward, formerly of the UK Royal Society, who in 2006challenged Exxon-Mobil to stop funding denialist organisations.

John Cook interviews Bob Ward at COP21, Paris.

The veils of secrecy have been temporarily lifted by the Peabody bankruptcy proceedings, revealing the extent of the company’s third-party payments, some of which went to fund climate misinformation. However, this is not the first revelation of fossil fuel funding of climate misinformation – nor is it the first case involving Peabody.

In 2015, Ben Stewart of Greenpeace posed as a consultant to fossil fuel companies and approached prominent climate denialists, offering to pay for reports promoting the benefits of fossil fuels. The denialists readily agreed to write fossil-fuel-friendly reports while hiding the funding source. One disclosed that he had been paid by Peabody to write contrarian research. He had also appeared as an expert witness and written newspaper op-eds.

John Cook interviews Ben Stewart, Greenpeace at COP21, Paris.

The bigger picture of fossil-fuelled denial

Peabody’s funding of climate change information and misinformation is one episode in a much larger history of fossil-fuel-funded misinformation. An analysis of more than 40,000 texts by contrarian sources found that organisations who received corporate funding published more climate misinformation, a trend that increased over time.

The following figure shows the use of the claim that “CO₂ is good” (a favourite argument of Peabody Energy) has increased dramatically among corporate-funded sources compared with unfunded ones.

Prevalence of denialist claim from corporate funded and non-funded sources. Farrell (2015)

In 1991, Western Fuels Association combined with other groups representing fossil fuel interests to produce a series of misinformation campaigns. This included a promoting the positive benefits of carbon dioxide, with hundreds of free copies sent to journalists and university libraries. The goal of the campaign was to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact)”, attempting to portray the impression of an active scientific debate about human-caused global warming.

ExxonSecrets.org has been tracking fossil-fuel-funded misinformation campaigns for more than two decades – documenting more than A$30 million of funding from Exxon alone to denialist think tanks from 1998 to 2014.

Exxon’s funding of climate science denial over this period is particularly egregious considering that it knew full well the risks from human-caused climate change. David Sassoon, founder of Pulitzer Prize-winning news organisation Inside Climate News led an investigation into Exxon’s internal research, discovering that its own scientists had warned the company of the harmful impacts of fossil fuel burning as long ago as the 1970s.

John Cook interviews David Sassoon from Inside Climate News.

Even Inside Climate News’s revelation of industry’s knowledge of the harmful effects of climate change before engaging in misinformation campaigns has precedence. In 2009, an internal report for the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing fossil fuel industry interests, was leaked to the press.

It showed that the coalition’s own scientific experts had advised it in 1995 that “[t]he scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO₂ on climate is well established and cannot be denied”. Nevertheless, the organisation proceeded to deny climate science and promote the benefits of fossil fuel emissions.

Ideology: the other half of an “unholy alliance”

However, to focus solely on industry’s role in climate science denial misses half the picture. The other significant player is political ideology. At an individual level, numerous surveys (such as here, here and and here) have found that political ideology is the biggest predictor of climate science denial.

People who fear the solutions to climate change, such as increased regulation of industry, are more likely to deny that there is a problem in the first place – what psychologists call “motivated disbelief”.

Consequently, groups promoting political ideology that opposes market regulation have been prolific sources of misinformation about climate change. This productivity has been enabled by the many millions of dollars flowing from the fossil fuel industry. Naomi Oreskes, co-author of Merchants of Doubt, refers to this partnership between vested interests and ideological groups as an “unholy alliance”.

Reducing the influence

To reduce the influence of climate science denial, we need to understand it. This requires awareness of both the role of political ideology and the support that ideological groups have received from vested interests.

Without this understanding, it’s possible to make potentially inaccurate accusations such as climate denial being purely motivated by money, or that it is intentionally deceptive. that ideologically driven confirmation bias (misinformation) is almost indistinguishable from intentional deception (disinformation).

Video from free online course Making Sense of Climate Science Denial (launches August 9).

The fossil fuel industry has played a hugely damaging role in promoting misinformation about climate change. But without the broader picture including the role of political ideology, one can build an incomplete picture of climate science denial, leading to potentially counterproductive responses.

John Cook, Climate Communication Research Fellow, Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. Main image:  Flickr/H M Cotterill

===

ecowatch stories:

http://ecowatch.com/?s=denier

==

1/16

By Heather Smith  GRIST

In 2000, two sociologists at Washington State University, Aaron McCright and Riley Dunlap, examined all of the writing that conservative think tanks in the U.S. and Canada had published on the subject of climate change. The result of their labors — titled Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement’s Counter-Claims — was the first comprehensive look at how conservative think tanks were trying to shape the conversation on climate.Now, in a new study, Constantine Boussalis and Travis G. Coan, political scientists at Trinity College Dublin and the University of Exeter, respectively, have set out to update that information. Sure, you worked hard to discredit climate science in the ’90s, conservative think tanks. But what have you done for us lately?

The conservative think tanks that are now a regular feature of our political scene mostly date back to the early ’70s — the result, so the story goes, of an influential memo written for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by the corporate lawyer (and later Supreme Court justice) Lewis Powell. Powell argued that a trifecta of labor unions, civil rights groups, and media-savvy social reformers, presided over by “idol of millions” Ralph Nader, had gotten too much power over American media and intellectual life.

What business needed to do, Powell argued, was create its own army of baby anti-Naders — a network of public intellectuals and “highly qualified scholars.” That network grew into today’s conservative-intellectual industrial complex.

In the early days, conservative think tanks didn’t talk about climate change because the Naders of this world didn’t talk about climate change either. They talked about pollution, or consumer safety. But after the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, conservative outfits like the Heritage Foundation began to write about climate change, too.

Still, McCright and Dunlap found that it was aslow build — think tanks on the right authored climate-change policy studies and press releases in the single digits until 1996, when the number shot up to 31. The next year, 1997, the number of publications was 166 — something that McCright and Dunlap suspect was part of a buildup to that year’s Congress of Parties on Climate Change (aka COP3) in Kyoto, Japan. The United States refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the climate treaty that was hashed out from that meeting, though a grassroots campaign to do so continued for years afterward.

McCright and Dunlap’s survey ended 16 years ago. How has the work of conservative think tanks on this topic changed since then? Have they evolved, now that the scientific consensus is hard to ignore and the U.S. has experienced a whole lot of weird weather, from Hurricane Sandy to Snowpocalypse?

Not really, according to Boussalis and Coan.When the two went looking for climate change–related writing from conservative think tanks, they found 16,028 reports, interviews, op-eds, press releases, and scientific reviews from between 1998 and 2013 — nearly 40 times the number (224) that McCright and Dunlap found 16 years earlier (and that’s once you factor in that the earlier study covered just 7 years, and not 15).

Between 1990 and 1997, McRight and Dunlap found that conservative think tank writing on climate change delivered three basic messages: (1) Climate change isn’t happening. (2) If climate change were happening, that would still be OK, because climate change is good for you. (3) Even if climate change were happening and it was bad, the solution to climate change would be worse than climate change, because it would tank the American economy — and some other country, like China or India, would just step in, burn a bunch of coal, and pick up the slack.

Out of these three arguments, numbers 1 and 3 were the most common — 71 percent of the publications aimed to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on global warming, and 62.1 percent focused on the downside of actual action. Only 13.4 percent discussed any potential benefits of climate change.

Boussalis and Coan found that all of the above arguments were still alive and kicking, with a few additions. Among them:

• Climate change is just part of a long-term natural temperature cycle, like the Medieval Warm Period.
• Even though atmospheric carbon levels are going up, that doesn’t mean the climate is changing.
• What we think is human-caused climate change is actually cosmic rays.
• The ‘‘**climategate’’** email controversy of late 2009 was a watershed event that proved once and for all that climate change is a total fraud.
• International efforts to do something to slow down/mitigate the effects of climate change are a thinly disguised plot to erode national and personal sovereignty.
• Any carbon tax/regulations in the energy sector/automobile fuel standards/cap-and-trade will put an unfair financial burden on working-class families and stymie efforts at energy independence and technological innovation.
• Individual scientists and politicians (especially Al Gore) are misrepresenting climate change to boost their own fame and glory.

In general, Boussalis and Coan conclude that, even while evidence continues to mount that climate change is a real thing caused by human action, the volume of propaganda declaring that it is not has been rising in parallel.

Boussalis and Coan have noticed an increased emphasis on science in the last five years — though a lot of this is driven by one prolific think tank called Co2Science, which produces a steady stream of scientific review articles (not to be confused with peer-reviewed articles). The next-most-prolific publisher, the Heartland Institute, got into trouble in 2012 after paying for billboards that equated believing in climate change with being the Unabomber. The bad publicity had some effect — Heartland canceled its annual climate change conference (informally known as Denialpalooza), but hassince reinstated it.

As in the earlier study, the amount of climate change–related work generated by conservative think tanks fluctuates according to the amount of attention being paid to climate change in the country at large. The release of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth in 2006 was one publishing peak, and so was the subsequent Nobel Prize given to both Gore and the IPCC in 2007.

While mainstream news publications are less likely to give weight to research or commentary on climate change generated by think tanks, that hasn’t stopped those institutions from cranking it out. Between 2000 and 2009, conservative think tanks generated, on average, 78 documents a month related to climate change; after 2009, that amount went up to 119.

Why the increase? For one thing, there are plenty of conservative publications that are happy to publish it. Another possibility is that even a privately funded think tank has to keep up with the times — as more people get their news online, the news cycle has accelerated for every media-generating operation, and that includes influence-peddlers.

The question remains: Does any of this actually work? If there are still 37 percent of Americans who believe that climate change isn’t happening, is that because of the tireless efforts of conservative think tanks? Or is it more that 37 percent just doesn’t care and are never going to care, and at this point, groups like the Heartland Institute are just collecting donor money for preaching to the choir (meaning, the 11 percent that is really firm in their disbelief)?

A study on the sociology of climate change published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS) in early 2015 found that the key to persuading people that climate change is real is familiarizing them with how overwhelming the scientific consensus behind it really is. Getting people to think scientists are more divided on the reality of climate change than they actually are was, and remains, a key piece of conservative strategy. Sure, it’s dishonest — but it seems to work quite well.

==

DOCUMENTING FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES’ CLIMATE DECEPTION

Jul 15, 2015 by Casey Coates Danson

Climate denier dossiers

Leaked internal memos reveal a coordinated, decades-long disinformation campaign.

by Elliott Negin

When internal documents revealed earlier this year that ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel interests were secretly funding scientifically discredited studies authored by climate contrarian Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, the news didn’t come as a complete surprise.

Back in 2007, a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report identified Soon—an aerospace engineer with little formal training in climatology—as one of a dozen scientists affiliated with more than 40 ExxonMobil-funded think tanks that then constituted the backbone of the climate change–denier PR machine. Soon, who erroneously claims the sun is largely responsible for global warming, produced work for at least five of these ExxonMobil-backed groups, including the now infamous Heartland Institute.

But the latest cache of documents, obtained by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, lays bare a wealth of detail that was not available eight years ago. For example, they show that Soon received his funding exclusively from fossil fuel interests, including ExxonMobil, utility giant Southern Company, and Charles Koch. He described his scientific work and congressional testimony as “deliverables” to his funders. And some of his contracts specifically dictate that the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, where Soon works, not disclose the names of his funders. These internal documents, on top of what UCS had already uncovered, indisputably establish Soon’s efforts as part of a calculated climate deception campaign.

Dossiers of Deception

Willie Soon, however, is just a small part of a much bigger story, according to a new UCS report, The Climate Deception Dossiers. After spending nearly a year reviewing and analyzing a wide range of internal corporate and trade group documents, a team of UCS researchers has, for the first time, compiled a broader tale of climate deception. The Climate Deception Dossiers draws upon evidence culled from 85 documents that were pried loose by leaks, lawsuits, and FOIA requests.

Spanning nearly three decades, these documents reveal that the world’s largest fossil fuel companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, coal giant Peabody Energy, and Shell—were fully aware of the reality of climate change but continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to sow doubt and promote contrarian arguments they knew to be wrong. Taken together, the documents show that these six companies, in conjunction with the American Petroleum Institute (API)—the oil and gas industry’s premier trade association—and a host of front groups, have colluded to intentionally deceive the public; their corporate officials have known for at least two decades that their products are harmful; and their disinformation campaign continues today—despite the fact that most of the companies now publicly acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic, or human-caused, climate change.

A team convened in 1998 by the American Petroleum Institute—the country’s largest oil trade association whose member companies include BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell Oil—outlined a road map for climate deception including a plan to cultivate purportedly independent scientists as climate misinformers. The campaign would achieve “victory,” according to the memo, when “average citizens” believed that the realities of climate science were uncertain.

The collected documents reveal a variety of deceitful tactics, including creating front groups, secretly funding purportedly independent scientists such as Soon, and even forging letters from nonprofit groups to try to influence members of Congress. But you don’t have to rely on UCS’s interpretation. All 340 pages of the documents in seven “deception dossiers” are available online, so you can read them and reach your own conclusions.

A Damning Paper Trail

The 340 pages include not only Soon’s contracts, but also a 1998 API disinformation road map memo as well as a 2014 Western States Petroleum Association memo on creating phony grassroots consumer groups to challenge California’s climate policies.

One eye-opening, formerly secret document reveals that scientific experts commissioned by theGlobal Climate Coalition (GCC)—a coalition of 50 U.S. corporations and trade groups including British Petroleum (now BP), Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, Mobil, and Shell—warned that heat-trapping gases were indeed causing global warming. Regardless, the GCC continued to conduct a multimillion-dollar lobbying and public relations campaign to undermine national and international efforts to address global warming.

One of the GCC’s “backgrounders” for legislators and journalists, for example, claimed “the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood” and emphasized that “scientists differ” on the issue. But the 17-page, internal 1995 GCC primer written by the companies’ own scientists states: “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied [emphasis added].” The primer’s lead author, Leonard S. Bernstein, a staff scientist at Mobil Oil, would later participate as a lead author of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports in 2001 and 2007.

One draft version of the primer even addressed and dismissed the major arguments made by climate change contrarians, such as the “solar variability” argument touted by Soon. “The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes,” the draft stated, “but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.” This section was deleted from the primer’s final version.

Three years later, the API set up what it called the Global Climate Science Communications Team to try to derail the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 international agreement signed by 192 countries—but not the United States—to meet binding carbon emissions reduction targets. A leaked 1998 campaign memo from this team, cowritten by representatives of the API and API members Chevron and Exxon, laid out a road map for climate deception largely based on the tobacco industry’s strategy to stave off government regulation by deceiving the public about smoking hazards.

Echoing that strategy—encapsulated in the notorious internal tobacco industry memo claiming “Doubt is our product”—the API memo states: “Victory will be achieved when: average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science.” The API team planned to emphasize “uncertainties” in climate science at least partly by identifying, recruiting, and funding previously unaffiliated scientists. After all, the memo notes, such scientists would have more credibility with reporters and the public than those already known to be working with the fossil fuel industry.

What makes the secret API memo so revealing is how closely its instructions seem to have been carried out in the Soon case. One of the API memo’s contributors, Robert Gehri, even negotiated one of Soon’s contracts on behalf of his industry backers. All told, Soon received more than $1.2 million from fossil fuel interests over the last decade and failed to disclose that conflict of interest in most of the scientific papers that money underwrote. More than $400,000 came from a subsidiary of the Southern Company, a large utility holding company with a fleet of coal-fired power plants. ExxonMobil gave Soon $335,000. The Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation kicked in another $230,000. The API, meanwhile, contributed more than $100,000.

What did they get for their money? The papers conclude that solar activity is the main cause of global warming and that carbon emissions have had little or no impact. Despite the speciousness of Soon’s findings, members of Congress—notably Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe—routinely cite his work to argue that climate science is a hoax.

Although the Industrial Revolution began more than 250 years ago, more than half of all industrial carbon emissions have been released since 1988—after major fossil fuel companies knew about the harm their products were causing.

Holding the Perpetrators Accountable

The tobacco industry successfully stalled meaningful regulations for decades. The fossil fuel industry has been using virtually the same strategy, at least when it comes to federal legislation. Meanwhile, as the fossil fuel companies’ deception campaign has continued, we’ve taken a heavy toll in rising temperatures and a host of climate impacts.

As the new UCS report notes, recent research has documented that 90 state- and privately owned corporations alone have produced and marketed the fossil fuels and cement responsible for nearly two-thirds of the world’s industrial heat-trapping carbon emissions over the past two and a half centuries. Of these, 50 are investor-owned coal, oil, and natural gas companies, including BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Peabody, and Shell. Furthermore, nearly 30 percent of all industrial emissions can be traced to just 20 investor- and state-owned companies.

What’s more, the rate of carbon emissions has increased dramatically in our rapidly industrializing world. As a result, more than half of all industrial carbon emissions have been released into the atmosphere since 1988—after major fossil fuel companies indisputably knew about the harm their products are doing to the climate.

What Is to Be Done?

There are a number of potential ways to hold large industrial polluters accountable for their actions. Shareholder engagement, divestment campaigns, and state court litigation could all play an important role in forcing them to take responsibility for their emissions, ending their disinformation campaigns, and even requiring them to pay reparations to cover the cost of climate damages, preparedness, and mitigation. The most effective tactics remain a subject for debate. But, as the picture of the fossil fuel companies’ efforts to deceive the public becomes clearer, it is high time to hold these companies accountable for their actions and the damage they’ve done

http://www.alternet.org/print/environment/i-used-be-climate-change-denier

==

pols video collage 6/14

http://ecowatch.com/2014/06/04/video-gop-climate-change-deniers/

not a scientist trope/line

brulle 2013:

donor trust 14%

scaife 7%, bradley 5 plus 1% ed, koch 5, howard charatible fdn 4, john w pope 4, searle 4, templeton 4%, dunn's fdn for the adv of rt thinking 2, smith richardson 2, vanguard 2, ...annenbeg kohler 2, Lilly 2%

RECIPIENTS

aei 16%, heritage 14, hoover 8% 45 mil$, Manh 6%, cato 5, hudson 5, atlas 4, afp 4, locke 3, heartl 3, reason 3, mrc 3, mercatus 3, ncpa 3, cei 2, spn2, pacif res 2, iwf 1, landmark 1, freedomwork 1 5.3m$

==

nice map and roll call:  http://thinkprogress.org/climate-denier-caucus/

==

http://grist.org/list/climate-deniers-apparently-cant-feel-heat/

GP 2013

Steve The Junkman Milloy, arguably one of the very first global warming deniers, first shot to fame through his challenges to the links between tobacco science and health problems when he was paid by Phillip Morris to direct the front group it set up in 1997 to defend the science of second hand smoke:  The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC).  He then turned to denial of climate change, and has been at the heart of that campaign ever since.

Milloy has claimed the campaign is driven by a small group of about 25 people.  So who might this “Continental Army” of about 25 people be?  We’ve found 31. Of course there are more who have come and gone, but this gives a fairly comprehensive picture.

Individuals associated with think tanks 

Joseph Bast, Heartland Institute

James Taylor, Heartland Institute

Sandy Liddy Bourne (Heartland, American Energy Freedom Center, ALEC)

Myron Ebell (CEI)

Christopher Horner (CEI and American Tradition Institute)

Marlo Lewis (CEI

Fred Smith (CEI)

Bob Ferguson, Science and Public Policy Institute

Craig Rucker Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow

Steven F Hayward (DCF, Power Line blog)

Nigel Lawson Global Warming Policy Foundation

Benny Peiser, Global Warming Policy Foundation

Paul Driessen, CFACT

The Echo Chamber

Along with the think tanks pushing climate denial, there’s a large “echo chamber” in the blogosphere, largely led by a small band of bloggers.  They have a larger echo chamber in the form of conservative media such as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh et al.

Anthony Watts: Wattsupwiththat.com

Marc Morano climatedepot.com

Steve McIntyre ClimateAudit

James Delingpole, The Daily Telegraph (UK)

Steve Milloy JunkScience.com

Andrew Bolt Australian Murdoch columnist

The “Scientists”

S Fred Singer (SEPP)

Richard S Lindzen

Patrick Michaels (Cato)

Willie Soon (and Sallie Baliunas) Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics

David Legates State Climatologist for Delaware

John Christy

Craig Idso – Center for the Studey of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change

Roy Spencer

Bob Carter (former JCU, Australia, now ex JCU)

Ian Plimer

Tim Ball

Special category: non scientists who pretend to have expertise

Lord Christopher Monckton

genre of books

==

ofa:

Call Out the Climate Change Deniers

DENIERS IN THE HOUSE

Rep. Robert Aderholt

AL-4

"I fall into the second group of people who believe, as do many very credible scientists, that the earth is currently in a natural warming cycle rather than a man-made climate change. Many scientists believe that natural cycles of warming and cooling have existed since the beginning of Earth. If we take the current models of climate prediction and apply those same models to what actually happened in the last thirty years, the models are shown to be very flawed. In addition, what knowledge we do have of a warming period in the Middle Ages cannot be explained by current models which are focused on greenhouse gas reductions."[source]

Rep. Rodney Alexander

LA-5

Introduced H Res 974 declaring that “the impacts of climate change and proposed resolutions, tainted by the recent uncovering of climategate, are not universally accepted….” [source]

Rep. Michele Bachmann

MN-6

"Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth."[source]

Rep. Lou Barletta

PA-11

"You know there's arguments on both sides. I'm not convinced that there's scientific evidence that proves that. I believe there's some that can also argue the opposite," he said.[source]

Rep. Joe Barton

TX-6

“You’re not just off a little, you’re totally wrong,” Barton said as he challenged Gore’s conclusion that carbon dioxide emissions cause rising global temperatures.[source]

Rep. Dan Benishek

MI-1

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that humans are contributing to climate change, Rep. Benishek has said that climate change is “all baloney” and “just some scheme.”  Pointing to his background as a general surgeon, Benishek claims he’s “a scientist” who has the expertise to know that climate change is “unproven science stuff.” [source]

Rep. Marsha Blackburn

TN-7

"Also absent from the discussion in Copenhagen is the climate-gate scandal. Recently leaked e-mails reveal climate scientists have a long track record of manipulating data to hide scientific evidence that contradicts the global warming establishment. And why? To bully citizens and lawmakers into supporting job-killing energy tax schemes. This scandal raises serious questions about the Democrat’s climate control plans, questions that deserve a transparent investigation, not a rush to judgement by the bureaucrats in Copenhagen."[source]

Rep. John Boehner

OH-8

"George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide."[source]

Rep. Kevin Brady

TX-8

"Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured."[source]

Rep. Jim Bridenstine

OK-1

He downplayed the need for more climate research by noting that atmospheric temperatures have not risen over the last decade, and said temperatures coincide more with solar activity than with man-made factors. “Global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago,” he said. “Global temperature changes, when they exist, correlate with sun output and ocean cycles.” He noted the Medieval Warm Period that happened “long before cars, power plants and the industrial revolution.” And he noted the Little Ice Age, which also happened irrespective of human activity.” Even climate change alarmists admit that the number of hurricanes hitting the U.S. and the number of tornado touchdowns have been on a slow decline for over 100 years,” he said.[source]

Rep. Mo Brooks

AL-5

"I'm also old enough to remember when the same left-wing part of our society was creating a global cooling scare in order to generate funds for their pet projects. So 30-some years ago the big scare was global cooling, and once they drained that [topic], they shifted to global warming. So I'm approaching the issue with a healthy degree of skepticism. If the evidence is there to prove it, then so be it." (also numerous quotes from a March 31, 2011 committee hearing)[source]

Rep. Paul Broun

GA-10

In June 2009, Broun received a standing ovation when he said that global warming is a "hoax". He said "Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus."[52][source]

Rep. Larry Bucshon

IN-8

"The data does not support the premise that carbon dioxide emissions are playing a significant role in the world temperature variations. The temperature of the Earth has been changing over centuries with warmer and colder periods throughout history."[source]

Rep. Michael Burgess

TX-26

“My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the science behind global temperature changes is not settled.”[source]

Rep. Dave Camp

MI-4

"What is the science of climate change? What can it definitively tell us? Can it say who is responsible for it? Can it tell us what impact we can have on it, and if we can, what are the results?both positive and negative? From what I have read, there remains a great deal of uncertainty with regard to the scientific evidence about climate change."[source]

Rep. Eric Cantor

VA-7

“If there’s been any constant in human history, it’s been climate change. The real question is the severity of that and the involvement of human causes in all of that.”[source]

Rep. Shelley Capito

WV-2

Despite a widespread scientific consensus, the West Virginia Republican said she’s “not convinced” that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide are leading to global warming that will alter the planet’s climate in ways that could be dangerous. [source]

Rep. John Carter

TX-31

“Global warming is simply a chicken-little scheme to use mass media and government propaganda to convince the world that destruction of individual liberties and national sovereignty is necessary to save mankind, and that the unwashed masses would destroy themselves without the enlightened global dictatorship of these frauds.”[source]

Rep. Bill Cassidy

LA-6

"It could be secular. It could just be a shift on the axis."[source]

Rep. Steve Chabot

OH-1

Climategate is “just another example of many in the press, and many in the academic/scientific community having bought into the whole global warming/climate change ‘religion,’ no matter what the facts are.” [source]

Rep. Jason Chaffetz

UT-3

Chaffetz lambasts global warming (calling it “a farce”). [source]

Rep. Mike Coffman

CO-6

Climate change is naturally occurring. What influence do we have over that, we certainly need to look into, but that's subject to debate[source]

Rep. Doug Collins

GA-9

When asked if he believes human activity is contributing to climate change, Representative Collins answered “no.”[source]

Rep. Michael Conaway

TX-11

Science is never settled…they changed the phraseology because the climate isn’t warming. [source]

Rep. Kevin Cramer

ND

When asked if he believed that human activity is contributing to climate change, Mr. Cramer answered “no” and went on to say: “The manipulation of free markets by economic policy disguised as environmental policy based on inconclusive science should not be tolerated. Free people producing energy other free people want and are willing to pay for should be the core of U.S. energy policy.”[source]

Rep. Rick Crawford

AR-1

He also fielded a question regarding climate change and President Obama’s environmental agenda. “There’s not sound science to support some of the initiatives that the President, I think, is committed to. We know that some of the research was faulty and it drove a lot of the agenda for a long time. and then it turned out there were some questions about the validity of that research.” “I don’t see a lot of the green initiatives that are being talked about being supported by scientific data, but more supported by political agendas.”[source]

Rep. John Culberson

TX-7

"This week the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided that the air we exhale, carbon dioxide, is toxic and poses a danger to our well-being…. While this blatant power grab is disappointing, the truly alarming part is that the scientific evidence the EPA used to support its conclusion comes directly from United Nations (U.N.) climate data – the same data that were recently found to have been deliberately manipulated to support the global warming movement. When EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced the proposed endangerment finding in April, she readily admitted that the agency “relied heavily upon the major findings and conclusions from recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Emails recently made public offer definitive proof of a collective effort among some U.N. scientists to misrepresent climate data in order to foist their political agenda onto the public."[source]

Rep. Steve Daines

MT

In a radio interview with Montana Public Radio, Daines admits the climate is changing but questions the impacts by man, that there is “significant debate here,” the “jury is still out,” and brings up the debate of sun/solar cycles versus greenhouse gases.[source]

Rep. Rodney Davis

IL-13

During an interview with Illinois Public Media radio, a constituent asked Representative Rodney Davis what he planned to do to combat climate change, and he responded that “global warming has stopped 16 years ago.” He then went on the say that climate change is real but the debate is over whether or not it is manmade or natural.[source]

Rep. Jeff Denham

CA-10

"Some wouldn’t view them as skeptics. Some would view them as the right side of the issue. We don’t have complete factual information yet. From what I have seen the Earth has heated and cooled on its own for centuries. I don’t know that there’s anything that is a direct cause of that right now, but we can do a better job of cleaning up our planet."[source]

Rep. John Duncan

TN-2

Supports claim that global warming is “the greatest scam in history.”[source]

Rep. Blake Farenthold

TX-27

"Global warming is scare tactic used by groups with a political agenda. [sic]"[source]

Rep. John Fleming

LA-4

“Quietly released scientific report without fanfare. Global warming, to the the extent that it ever existed, halted 16 years ago. So, what is Washington controlled by the radical environmental agenda?”[source]

Rep. Bill Flores

TX-17

It is time we stopped putting petty politics based on dubious “agenda-driven, scientific” research ahead of creating more American energy. [source]

Rep. Randy Forbes

VA-4

Elected officials need to depend on experts in the field to make determinations on the degree to which our planet is warming, and there is evidence among scientists and researchers pointing in both directions. [source]

Rep. Virginia Foxx

NC-5

North Carolina Republican Virginia Foxx referenced books by climate-change skeptics and lamented that some environmentalists “think that we, human beings, have more impact on the climate and the world than God does.”[source]

Rep. Trent Franks

AZ-8

I have yet to see clear and convincing evidence that it exists beyond historical fluctuations. [source]

Rep. Cory Gardner

CO-4

Representative Cory Gardner, a freshman Republican from Colorado and a skeptic of human-caused global warming... "“I think the climate is changing, but I don’t believe humans are causing that change to the extent that’s been in the news."[source]

Rep. Scott Garrett

NJ-5

"The real question that still exists in a lot of people’s minds, experts and non-experts alike, on the area of global warming and what role the government should have in this realm. … I’ve heard a number of experts on both sides of the equation on this issue and to me the evidence, the question is still out there."[source]

Rep. Bob Gibbs

OH-7

"It is clear that science has not been able to document what is happening and if human activity is causing a problem or not . Many scientists are on both sides of this issue and the proponents of climate change have not substantiated their findings based on sound science."[source]

Rep. Phil Gingrey

GA-11

Filed petition with EPA claiming: "Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured"[source]

Rep. Louie Gohmert

TX-1

"We’re finding out the world is staying the same or actually cooling."[source]

Rep. Paul Gosar

AZ-4

Further, “global warming” now known as “climate change” is likely not in our control in any event. Historical records clearly demonstrate vast temperature swings long before Man arrived, from temperate zones in Alaska to ice ages in New York.[source]

Rep. Trey Gowdy

SC-4

"Global warming has not been proven to the satisfaction of the constituents I seek to serve."[source]

Rep. Tim Griffin

AR-2

“I am not convinced that the problem of global warming is what the scientists say it is. Particularly in light of the recent research, that demonstrates that there are a lot of shenanigans going on with the data.”[source]

Rep. Morgan Griffith

VA-9

"[Climate Change] led to the Vikings dominating Europe for several hundred years."[source]

Rep. Michael Grimm

NY-11

"I have been one of the guys who have been skeptical of global warming from the beginning. The jury is obviously still out on it. We see nothing but conflicting reports from across the globe. I’m not sure, I’m not a scientist."[source]

Rep. Ralph Hall

TX-4

"I'm really more fearful of freezing. And I don't have any science to prove that. But we have a lot of science that tells us they're not basing it on real scientific facts"[source]

Rep. Gregg Harper

MS-3

"I don't believe that the science is at all settled on man-made global warming."[source]

Rep. Andy Harris

MD-1

Harris said there is a recent warming trend, but “I don’t understand or know, or I don’t believe anybody really knows, how to place that in historic perspective.” He also said human contribution to climate change “is also a complex question,” and that even if humans are contributing, “can you change that contribution given that we burn a lot of carbon-based products to create the energy we need to run the economy of the world?”[source]

Rep. Vicky Hartzler

MO-4

"Enjoying another beautiful global warming day in Missouri! Rep. Skelton and the UN Summit need to quit their dist. of wealth for a hoax."[source]

Rep. Doc Hastings

WA-4

Hastings told the Columbia Basin Herald he understands global warming exists. He said the cause of global warming is the concern. Hastings said he is not convinced people and their actions are the cause of global warming and questions if it is a natural process because the earth has warmed and cooled many times throughout history.[source]

Rep. Richard Hudson

NC-8

When asked if human activity is contributing to climate change, he responded no.[source]

Rep. Bill Huizenga

MI-2

"Today’s global warming doomsayers simply lack the scientific evidence to support their claims. A host of leaders in the scientific community have recognized that the argument for drastic anthropogenic global warming is no longer based on science, but is being driven by irrational fanaticism."[source]

Rep. Randy Hultgren

IL-14

"The greatest impact on our climate clearly is the sun, and we have very little impact on the sun and how much energy and temperature the sun is sending to the earth. We have seen clearly over thousands of years that at different times more energy has come through and different times less energy has come through, and that variation has impacted climate change. Over the thousands of years that’s been recorded we’ve had both colder times and warmer times. It happens to be that we’ve recently come out of a warmer time and now actually we’re headed in to a little bit of a colder time, the impact of the sun is much different than impact that we could have had."[source]

Rep. Duncan Hunter

CA-50

Hunter ridiculed the notion that climate change needs to be addressed by Congress. “Nobody really knows the cause,” he said. “The earth cools, the earth warms…It could be caused by carbon dioxide or methane. Maybe we should kill the cows to stop the methane, or stop breathing to stop the CO2…Thousands of people die every year of cold, so if we had global warming it would save lives…We ought to look out for people. The earth can take care of itself.” [source]

Rep. Robert Hurt

VA-5

Hurt said Climategate is “scientists who have given us something that is not true. It is faulty information and it has real consequences in the 5th District, in the loss of jobs and in power bills from Appalachian Power Co.”[source]

Rep. Darrell Issa

CA-49

One of the difficulties in examining the issue of the climate change and greenhouse gases is that there is a wide range of scientific opinion on this issue and the science community does not agree to the extent of the problem or the critical threshold of when this problem is truly catastrophic.[source]

Rep. Lynn Jenkins

KS-2

I cosponsored a res. overturning an EPA rule that says man-made greenhouse gas emissions are a danger to public health. [source]

Rep. Bill Johnson

OH-6

In another, more accurate, sense, Johnson is a man with a degree in computer science who is awash in oil and gas money and denies climate science, asserting in 2011, “I am not an alarmist that believes that greenhouse gas emissions coming from the coal industry are causing major problems.”[source]

Rep. Walter Jones

NC-3

“However, there is substantial disagreement regarding the extent of this warming, whether it’s caused by human activity or simply nature taking its course, and what solutions, if any, should be implemented. The bottom line is that the scientific community does not speak with one voice on this issue.”[source]

Rep. Steve King

IA-4

"There are a couple of German engineers that took that theory apart and proved it wrong in a lab. I’ve read through that, but I’d have to go back to school for a half a year or a year to tell you I followed every bit of their rationale. But the presumption of the Greenhouse Effect is at least, from what I saw, was pretty convincingly rebutted."[source]

Rep. Jack Kingston

GA-1

"We have a moral duty to be good stewards of the environment but growing the government’s coffers and killing jobs based on questionable science is a bridge too far."[source]

Rep. Doug LaMalfa

CA-1

It’s “bad science.” It’s “Al Gore.” It’s a “naturally occurring cycle.” You should “look at the numbers.”[source]

Rep. Doug Lamborn

CO-5

Lamborn said there are “a lot of contentious facts and claims about global warming and whether it is man made.” However, he said there is “not much unanimity” about it. At that statement many audience members commented that 98 percent was “pretty unanimous.” Lamborn said he spoke to a scientist who believes that global warming is man-made and “should materialize” 50-100 years from now. He said there are issues that need dealing with now. Eckler asked again if he would listen to the evidence claiming global warming is here and now. After more back-and-forth on the issue, Lamborn said, “I think we’ve beaten this horse to a pulp. I’m listening to all sides.”[source]

Rep. James Lankford

OK-5

"This whole global warming myth will be exposed as what it really is — a way of control more than anything else. And that generation will be ticked."[source]

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer

MO-3

Luetkemeyer’s legislation would prohibit U.S. contributions to the IPCC, which is nothing more than a group of U.N. bureaucrats that supports man-made claims on global warming that many scientists disagree with…. Meanwhile, our very own Environmental Protection Agency recently reported that we are undergoing a period of worldwide cooling. [source]

Rep. Cynthia Lummis

WY

“We’re just beginning to explore what mankind’s role is in climate change, so I’d argue that the jury’s still out.”[source]

Rep. Thomas Massie

KY-4

Rep. Thomas Massie challenged President Obama to roll out the proof that humans have played a hand in climate change. Mr. Massie, a Kentucky Republican, said he was “disappointed” that the president in his second inaugural address blamed droughts on “human activity” and accused some of “denying the evidence of scientists.” “As somebody with a science-type background, I took offense at that,” Mr. Massie said during a panel meeting billed as “Conversations With Conservatives.” “I would challenge him to show us the linkage — the undeniable linkage — between droughts and the change of weather, and some kind of human activity.”[source]

Rep. Tom McClintock

CA-4

"We're all told of course the debate is over and that all the scientists agree... and as all of you know, that is succinctly not the case."[source]

Rep. David McKinley

WV-1

Many scientists have disavowed past climate change research, McKinley said, and he’s waiting for valid science to convince him there’s a problem and whether man is to blame. [source]

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

WA-5

"We believe Al Gore deserves an ‘F’ in science and an ‘A’ in creative writing."[source]

Rep. Candice Miller

MI-10

"There is little doubt that the world’s climate is changing, because the climate has always changed. Just ask the dinosaurs or remember the ice age and how huge glaciers melting and moving formed our Great Lakes. The question is whether the current climate change is human-induced."[source]

Rep. Mick Mulvaney

SC-5

"Energy independence, green technology, and innovation is something we should pursue as a nation. However, we shouldn’t seek to accomplish that by taxing people based on questionable science. Neither should we ignore domestic energy resources – coal, natural gas, oil – because of baseless claims regarding global warming."[source]

Rep. Randy Neugebauer

TX-19

"What we have here is a case of formulating scientific findings that back up policy, instead of creating policy that is backed up by legitimate science. Proponents of man-made global warming in Congress will use every opportunity they have to invite witnesses to testify before Congress who only share their point of view. We now have clear evidence of what we knew all along, that there are perhaps thousands of scientists who don’t share these views, and sadly have been the subject of concerted efforts to discourage and suppress their findings from publication."[source]

Rep. Kristi Noem

SD

Voted for an SD House Resolution stating that: "That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative"[source]

Rep. Devin Nunes

CA-22

"However, scientists admit that they cannot be sure whether the Earth’s temperature is rising due to cyclical warming and cooling processes, or whether and how much humans are influencing it."[source]

Rep. Pete Olson

TX-22

"The emails that emerge from the University of East Anglia call into question the accuracy of the IPCC data."[source]

Rep. Erik Paulsen

MN-3

When asked if human beings are contributing to global warming, Paulsen said he wasn’t smart enough to know whether that’s true or not.[source]

Rep. Stevan Pearce

NM-2

“I think we ought to take a look at whatever the group is that measures all this, the IPCC, they don’t even believe the crap... why should the rest of be penalized in our standard of living for something that can’t be validated?” [source]

Rep. Robert Pittenger

NC-9

We don't have the facts yet.... Those in my party understand that in some great measure this is a hoax.[source]

Rep. Ted Poe

TX-2

The consensus has been for some time that global warming, climate change, continues because man is the perpetrator. Now we are beginning to learn that may not be true, that there is not a consensus that there is global warming or climate change. We now have heard about Climategate, where the expert scientists hid emails in England that disagreed with the so-called consensus that there is global warming and global climate change. We have heard now new evidence that even NASA is involved in not revealing evidence that contradicts climate change. [source]

Rep. Tom Price

GA-6

"This decision goes against all common sense, especially considering the many recent revelations of errors and obfuscation in the allegedly ‘settled science’ of global warming."[source]

Rep. Scott Rigell

VA-2

Does not believe that climate change is caused by human actions. [source]

Rep. Phil Roe

TN-1

"Many believe greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the gradual warming of our planet and changing of our climate. While there are many questions surrounding the science of the issue, it seems to me like we could develop a solution that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions without inflicting catastrophic damage on our economy."[source]

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher

CA-48

"Too often, when congress is asked to pass environmental legislation, the legislation is based on emotional junk science rather than data based on reproducable, rigorous, tested, peer-reviewed results. In no area has this been more obvious than climate change. Because the Kyoto Treaty and much of the suggested environmental legislation would decimate jobs in southern California, constituents may be interested to learn of the growing scientific consensus that global warming is not manmade, if it is in fact even occuring."[source]

Rep. Todd Rokita

IN-4

"The link between manmade carbon emissions and measureable harm to the environment is a topic currently under debate. While there may exist a link, the current debate continues."[source]

Rep. Peter Roskam

IL-6

Roskam drew the ire of the crowd by calling global warming junk science. [source]

Rep. Keith Rothfus

PA-12

When asked, "Do you believe that global warming which is now referred to as climate change is a fact, and if so do you believe that it is man-made?" Rothfus responded, "I do not believe it’s man-made and I am not convinced that it is a fact. I think the science is still out. I think for the last 15 years we haven’t had any warming."[source]

Rep. Paul Ryan

WI-1

Unilateral economic restraint in the name of fighting global warming has been a tough sell in our communities, where much of the state is buried under snow. [source]

Rep. Steve Scalise

LA-1

Asked whether he worries that he could be wrong, Scalise cited an “increasing number of scientists who are raising major questions about the global warming theories.” [source]

Rep. James Sensenbrenner

WI-5

"I think that the science is inconclusive on this...I personally believe that the solar flares are more responsible for climatic cycles than anything that human beings do and our lunar, our rovers on Mars have indicated that there has been a slight warming in the atmosphere of Mars and that certainly was not caused by the internal combustion engine."[source]

Rep. John Shimkus

IL-15

Filed petition with EPA claiming: "Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured"[source]

Rep. Lamar Smith

TX-21

“I believe climate change is due to a combination of factors, including natural cycles, sun spots and human activity. But scientists still don't know for certain how much each of these factors contributes to the overall climate change that the Earth is experiencing,” he said in a statement (San Antonio Express-News, 12/6/12)[source]

Rep. Chris Stewart

UT-2

"The science regarding climate change is anything but settled. "[source]

Rep. Steve Stivers

OH-15

Disagrees with the statement: “Man-made global warming is a scientific fact.”[source]

Rep. Steve Stockman

TX-36

“The new fad thing that’s going through America and around the world. It’s called global warming.”[source]

Rep. Lee Terry

NE-2

"There's an argument here on the true impact of man... Is it really 97 to 3? I don't think so."[source]

Rep. Glenn Thompson

PA-5

"In the debate and most of the debate of the majority party here, it’s not so much based on real science as political science or even, to some degree, science fiction. And so, to look at why this–and I looked at every piece of legislation in terms of cost benefits. And when we look at the benefits of this, I think human activity, it’s acknowledged, does contribute towards carbon dioxide emissions. But it’s less than 4 percent. To put that into perspective, forest fires, wildfires contribute 10 percent of CO2 emissions. And so not even with the debate of, you know, are we warming the Earth or not warming the Earth, there’s a lot of smart folks out there that are publishing research or earning their dissertations based on debating that science. But what the experts agree upon, the researchers agree is, human activity is less than 4 percent contributes towards CO2 emissions."[source]

Rep. Mac Thornberry

TX-13

"Global Warming: Politics or Science? Some scientists believe that the temperature of the Earth is increasing rapidly. Others, such as those at the United Kingdom’s Hadley Center for Climate Studies, say that the Earth’s temperature is not much different now than it was 50 or 100 years ago. The case that man is causing any change in temperature is even more hotly contested."[source]

Rep. Pat Tiberi

OH-12

GOP Rep. Pat Tiberi of Genoa Township doesn’t think there is a consensus among scientists about whether global warming is proven.[source]

Rep. Scott Tipton

CO-3

Scott Tipton (R-CO) conceded that climate change exists, but argued that it’s caused by natural climate cycles rather than humans. “Here in the state of Colorado as our tree rings demonstrate, we’ve had droughts long before there were very many people here,” the Tea Party freshman argued. Acknowledging that humans can affect the climate is futile because it would “divide America,” said Tipton.[source]

Rep. Fred Upton

MI-6

"Are any of those incurred costs actually going to impact the rising temperature under debate? The answer was no. No matter what we did between now and 2050 it, it, there was no real science to verify that it would reduce the temperature rise that some predicted. And that’s why we do need hearings [on the Climategate emails]."[source]

Rep. Ann Wagner

MO-2

"Our policy response to this dilemma should not be based on inconsistent and unsound science..."[source]

Rep. Tim Walberg

MI-7

"I read scientists, editors…an equal number at the very least that say just the opposite that this is something that’s gone on for eons, that we go through these cycles."[source]

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland

GA-3

Westmoreland, who isn’t convinced that global warming is occurring, denied that he was trying to divert attention from Gore’s testimony. Also Filed petition with EPA claiming: "Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured"[source]

Rep. Ed Whitfield

KY-1

"Misrepresenting scientific research to support one’s own personal beliefs, particularly on an international stage, is dangerous, disingenuous and simply unacceptable. I call on Mr. Gore to come clean about the real science surrounding climate change and let the American people come to their own conclusions on global warming."[source]

Rep. Joe Wilson

SC-2

When asked if he believes that human activity is contributing to climate change, Rep. Wilson answered “no.”[source]

Rep. Robert Wittman

VA-1

"We must recognize that these climactic cycles of heating and cooling have been going on well before man appeared on earth."[source]

Rep. Don Young

AK

"I think this is the biggest scam since the Teapot Dome."[source]

Rep. Todd Young

IN-9

“The science is not settled.”[source]

DENIERS IN THE SENATE

Sen. Kelly Ayotte

NH

Asked if she believed in climate change, she said, “there is scientific evidence that demonstrates there is some impact from human activities. However I don’t think the evidence is conclusive.” [source]

Sen. John Barrasso

WY

When Barrasso was in college and medical school, he said, the "best science at the time said that the Ice Age is coming.... So all I'm saying is, how much of the wealth of this nation are we going to put at risk for something that may be poorly spent money?"[source]

Sen. Roy Blunt

MO

“There isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth.”[source]

Sen. John Boozman

AR

"Well I think that we’ve got perhaps climate change going on. The question is what’s causing it. Is man causing it, or, you know, is this a cycle that happens throughout the years, throughout the ages. And you can look back some of the previous times when there was no industrialization, you had these different ages, ice ages, and things warming and things. That’s the question."[source]

Sen. Thomas Coburn

OK

“I’ve read the basic scientific studies, and a lot of it doesn’t add up for me,”[source]

Sen. John Cornyn

TX

“Taxpayer funded research by NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) concerning the warmest years on record has been the subject of dispute and after challenges, has been changed and re-released. What is less known is why the changes were made and what inherent flaws existed in the original data, if any. It is important to understand the reasons behind these alterations and further to avoid suspicion that data was massaged to fit the prescribed theory that global warming is attributable to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”[source]

Sen. Michael Crapo

ID

"While there is no dispute over the fact that the Earth’s climate has changed many times over the planet’s history, the underlying cause of these climactic shifts is ultimately not well-understood and is a matter of vigorous debate."[source]

Sen. Ted Cruz

TX

"There remains considerable uncertainty about the effect of the many factors that influence climate: the sun, the oceans, clouds, the behavior of water vapor (the main greenhouse gas), volcanic activity, and human activity. Nonetheless, climate-change proponents based their models on assumptions about those factors, and now we know that many of those assumptions were wrong."[source]

Sen. Deb Fischer

NE

Asked about man-made climate change, Fischer immediately said, 'I certainly don't support cap-and-trade.' She said she believes in weather change, but she said she does not believe man has a huge impact on the climate. [source]

Sen. Chuck Grassley

IA

"But the scientific aspect that I still reserving judgment on is the extent to which it’s manmade or natural. And it’s reasonable, considering that there’s at least a natural factor in it, because historically, and you can go to the core drillings in the glaciers to get proof of this, that we’ve had decades and decades, and maybe even centuries of periods of time when there’s been a tremendous rise in temperature, and then a tremendous fall in temperature. And all you’ve got to do is look at the little ice age of the mid-last millennia as an example. And so we’ve got to single out what’s natural and what’s manmade before you can make policy."[source]

Sen. Orrin Hatch

UT

"There is also some disagreement among scientists as to whether global warming – regardless of its cause – would result in a net benefit or detriment to life on earth. Scientific studies demonstrate overwhelmingly that humans tend to fare better during warming spells than periods of cooling."[source]

Sen. John Hoeven

ND

"Well, the science shows that there’s warming. There’s different opinions of exactly what’s causing it."[source]

Sen. Jim Inhofe

OK

"I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists."[36] [source]

Sen. John Isakson

GA

"Science has shown us that there has been a gradual warming of the earth over the last 50 years. What is not as clear is whether the cause for this warming is man-made emissions, a cyclical warming of the planet, or a combination of both. Given the uncertainty in the science behind climate change, I believe that we should take proactive steps, both personally and as a nation, to reduce our emissions footprint."[source]

Sen. Mike Johanns

NE

There is a significant debate as to what role man plays in warming of the climate. [source]

Sen. Ron Johnson

WI

"“I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change,” Johnson said. “It’s not proven by any stretch of the imagination. It's far more likely that it's sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time.”[source]

Sen. Rand Paul

KY

"[Scientists] are making up their facts to fit their conclusions. They’ve already caught them doing this."[source]

Sen. Rob Portman

OH

"When you analyze all the data, there is a warming trend according to science. But the jury is out on the degree of how much is manmade."[source]

Sen. Pat Roberts

KS

"There’s no question there’s some global warming, but I’m not sure what it means. A lot of this is condescending elitism."[source]

Sen. Marco Rubio

FL

The government can’t change the weather. I said that in the speech. We can pass a bunch of laws that will destroy our economy, but it isn’t going to change the weather. --- "I don't think there's the scientific evidence to justify it," he told the Tampa Tribune[source]

Sen. Richard Shelby

AL

"Global warming continues to be an issue of significant debate in Congress and throughout the scientific community. In addition, important scientific research is ongoing as there are still many questions that must be answered before we take steps to address this issue. For example, is the climate change phenomenon cyclical or is it a function of manmade pollutants, or both? I believe the science must be firmly grounded before we take any actions that could seriously cripple many sectors of our economy."[source]

Sen. Pat Toomey

PA

"My view is: I think the data is pretty clear. There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it’s clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated."[source]

Sen. David Vitter

LA

"I do not think the science clearly supports global warming theory."[source]

Sen. Roger Wicker

MS

"Science shows that there is an increase of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. But it has not been compellingly proven that mankind is responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2, nor is it clear what impact CO2 has on Earth’s temperatures."[source]

Thanks to RL Miller for contributing to some of the original research in tracking down this information.

=

• Heartland Institute And James Taylor
• Competitive Enterprise Institute
• Chris Horner And The American Tradition Institute
• Manhattan Institute And Robert Bryce
• Heritage Foundation
• Cato Institute And Patrick Michaels
• American Enterprise Institute
• Marc Morano
• Anthony Watts
• Steve Milloy
• Joe Bastardi
• Matt Ridley
• Larry Bell

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545

zombies: http://thinkprogress.org/climate-zombie-caucus/

Table 3. Selected Quotes from Members of Congress Who Have Misrepresented

NH-Sen (R) Kelly Ayotte “There is scientific evidence that demonstrates there is some impact

from human activities. However, I don’t think the evidence is conclusive.”

(McDermott 2010)

MN-Rep (R) Michele Bachmann “…the science indicates that human activity is not the cause of all this

global warming. And that in fact, nature is the cause, with solar flares, etc.”

(Grandia 2009)

TX-Rep (R) Joe Barton “Global warming is ‘unequivocal?’ It’s just flat out not true!” (Barton 2011)

MO-Sen (R) Roy Blunt “There isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path

of the earth.” (Hair 2009)

OK-Sen (R) Tom Coburn “I am not the smartest man in the world, but I have been trained to read

scientific documents, and [anthropogenic climate change] is malarkey.”

(Roberts 2009)

OK-Sen (R) James Inhofe “With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it

be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated

on the American people? It sure sounds like it.” (Inhofe 2003)

WI-Sen (R) Ron Johnson “I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change.

It’s not proven by any stretch of the imagination.” (Miller 2010)

IA-Rep (R) Steve King “It’s not rational, it’s a religion that we’re up against . . . the presumption of

the greenhouse effect is at least, from what I saw, was pretty convincingly

rebutted.” (Keyes 2010)

MN-Rep (D) Collin Peterson “They’re saying to us [that climate change is] going to be a big problem

because it’s going to be warmer than it usually is; my farmers are going to

say that’s a good thing since they’ll be able to grow more corn.” (Power

and Hughes 2009)

CA-Rep (R) Dana Rohrabacher “There is no consensus. Yet we are bombarded by radical environmentalists,

and the media hype, with the common refrain ‘case closed: global

warming is real.’” (Rohrabacher 2009)

WI-Rep (R) Jim Sensenbrenner “I personally believe that the solar flares are more responsible for climatic

cycles than anything human beings do.” (Berliant 2009)

IL-Rep (R) John Shimkus “There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet—

not too much carbon.” (Mail Online 2010)

MI-Rep (R) Fred Upton “The principle argument for [delaying EPA’s greenhouse gas regulation]

is that it will allow Congress time to create its own plan for regulating

carbon. This presumes that carbon is a problem in need of regulation.

We are not convinced.” (Phillips and Upton 2010)

Table 3. Selected Quotes from Members of Congress Who Have Misrepresented

Climate Science

In the period of heightened debates on climate policy during 2009 and 2010, some members of Congress made outlandish

statements that spread misinformation about established climate science. W hile we cannot determine their motivations for

such statements, these legislators received substantial funding from industries opposed to climate legislation that had been

introduced (Andoni and Jaime 2011).

NASA ltr:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/blanquita-cullum/  radio  wkly st'd

s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight :{Design:(style="font-weight:inherit;color:#006400;;background:transparent"):}: and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and :{Power:(style="font-weight:inherit;color:#006400;;background:transparent"):}: Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/

s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years financial advisor

/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years fired fir seelong stamps, ran for office

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4#ixzz1s22Q3MQz

http://grist.org/list/study-explains-why-its-useless-to-argue-with-climate-deniers/  not so much the pro's but amateur?

tracking smears:  http://mediamattersaction.org/smears/

eg

Smearers

The Smearers

• Glenn Beck
• Fox News

Who are they smearing?

• Kevin Jennings
• Cass Sunstein
• Carol Browner
• SEIU

http://www.grist.org/list/2011-11-07-handy-image-shows-how-climate-deniers-manipulate-data

http://www.grist.org/list/2011-11-11-climate-denialism-its-an-anglo-saxon-thing

by Jess Zimmerman

11 Nov 2011

According to a new study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, climate change denial -- or at least, representation of climate change denial in the media -- is pretty heavily an Anglo-Saxon problem. The study analyzed more than 3,000 articles from six countries that presented deniers' viewpoints, and 80 percent of them were from the U.S. or the U.K.

Newspapers in Brazil, China, and India were much less likely to cite skeptics, and even France pooh-poohed denialism as it pooh-poohs most other things. When they did quote skeptics, they were overwhelmingly the type of skeptics who doubt the human contribution to global warming, rather than the type who outright deny it exists. But the English-speakers bravely held up the tradition.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/

Heartland List 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute/Global_warming_experts

desmog list:

A

William JR Alexander

Scott Armstrong

August Auer

Dennis Avery

B

Sallie Baliunas

Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball)

Jack Barrett

Joseph Bast

Calvin Beisner

Larry Bell

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen

Donald J. Boudreaux

Alexandra Liddy Bourne

Robert L. Bradley Jr.

Barry Brill

H. Sterling Burnett

C

Bob Carter

Alan Carlin

John Charles

Paul Chesser

Petr Chylek

Ian Clark

John Coleman

Paul Copper

Roy Cordato

Richard S. Courtney

D

Peter Dietze

Freeman Dyson

E

Myron Ebell

Hugh W. Ellsaesser

Robert H. Essenhigh

Christopher Essex

David Evans

F

Michael Fox

Chris de Freitas

G

Dan Gainor

Lee C. Gerhard

Ivar Giaever

Fred Goldberg

Steve Goreham

Vincent Gray

Kenneth Green

Kesten Green

H

Ken Haapala

Keith D. Hage

Tom Harris

Howard Hayden

David Henderson

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera

Art Horn

Chris Horner

Douglas V. Hoyt

I

Craig Idso

James Inhofe

Roy Innis

Kiminori Itoh

J

Zbigniew Jaworowski

K

Wibjorn Karlen

Madhav Khandekar

William Kininmonth

L

Hans HJ Labohm

Nigel Lawson

Douglas Leahey

David Legates

Richard Lindzen

Gerrit van der Lingen

Bjorn Lomborg

M

Alister McFarquhar

Ross McKitrick

Robert Mendelsohn

Patrick Michaels

Fred Michel

Steve Milloy

Asmunn Moene

Christopher Monckton

Marc Morano

Nils-Axel Morner

Julian Morris

Robert P. Murphy

Tad Murty

Todd Myers

N

John Nothdurft

Joanne Nova

O

Oregon Petition

P

R. Timothy Patterson

Benny Peiser

Al Pekarek

Tim Phillips

Ian Plimer

Harry N.A. Priem

Andreas Prokoph

R

Richard Rahn

Paul Reiter

Art Robinson

Arthur Rorsch

S

Nicola Scafetta

Rob Scagel

Harrison Schmitt

David Schnare

Joel Schwartz

Frederick Seitz

Gary D. Sharp

Paavo Siitam

Joanne Simpson

S. Fred Singer

L. Graham Smith

Willie Soon

Roy Spencer

Gordon E. Swaters

T

Tom Tanton

James Taylor

Hendrik Tennekes

David Tuerck

W

Anthony Watts

Boris Winterhalter

David Wojick

GOP 2010 candiates:

Remarkably, of the dozens of Republicans vying for the 37 Senate seats in the 2010 election, none supports climate action. Even former climate advocates Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) now toe the science-doubting party line.

Many of the Senate candidates are signatories of the Koch Industries’ Americans For Prosperity No Climate Tax pledge and the FreedomWorks Contract From America. The second plank of the Contract From America is to “Reject Cap & Trade: Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.”

In reality, a carbon cap-and-trade market — by rewarding work instead of pollution — would increase jobs, lower electricity bills, restore American competitiveness, and forestall a climate catastrophe.

GOP SENATE CANDIDATES ON CLIMATE SCIENCE AND POLICY

Overwhelmingly, the Republican candidates not only oppose action to limit global warming pollution, they question the validity of climate science. Here are a few quotes drawn from the Wonk Room report:

Gov. John Boozman, Arkansas:

“Well I think that we’ve got perhaps climate change going on. The question is what’s causing it. Is man causing it, or, you know, is this a cycle that happens throughout the years, throughout the ages. And you can look back some of the previous times when there was no industrialization, you had these different ages, ice ages, and things warming and things. That’s the question.” KTHV Little Rock, [3/10]

Rep. Roy Blunt, Missouri:

“There isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth.” Human Events, [4/29/09]

Rep. Rob Portman, Ohio:

“When you analyze all the data, there is a warming trend according to science,” he said. “But the jury is out on the degree of how much is manmade.” Columbus Dispatch, [7/25/10]

Jim Huffman, Oregon:

He casts doubt on scientists’ findings about global warming. It’s “rooted in some fairly vague science,” he says. “There are a lot of studies out there that offer alternative explanations for global climate variations.” Huffman opposes a cap and trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, largely because it will be too expensive. He argues that it’s more realistic to adapt to climate change than disrupt peoples’ lives trying to prevent it. If some island nations become uninhabitable, he says, “I think that’s a tragedy, but we can adapt to that.”Portland Tribune, [9/2/10]

To recap: 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming, but 97% of GOP Senate candidates disagree.

ucs list: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html

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

Global warming skeptics -- also referred to as "climate change skeptics" or "anthropogenic (human-induced) global warming skeptics" -- generally refers to individuals or groups who disagree with claims that emissions of man-made CO2 significantly enhance the natural atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Self-identified "skeptics" tend to focus their critiques on the reports of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC reports are based primarily on peer reviewed and published scientific literature, and on occasion include material that is recently published or has not yet been published.^[1]

Skeptics' disputes with the IPCC and advocates of action on climate change are commonly along one or more of the following lines:

• There is no conclusive evidence that climate change is happening;
• The changes in measured temperatures are part of the natural cycle;
• Even if the changes are human induced, the scale is not sufficiently large to make changes beyond sensible "least cost" measures; and
• The economic impact of making substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions on the scale suggested by the IPCC or other groups is too large.
• The dire predictions of global warming are based on computer models, but those models don't include such highly correlated data as sun spots and global temperature changes.

While some skeptics challenge a particular technical point or approach in the IPCC reports - for instance, that there is global warming but it is not due to human activity - others have a more sweeping rejection of climate change science and proposed responses in general.

Common threads of Climate Skeptics Arguments

In a paper reviewing the common arguments of the global warming skeptics, Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics of the Oceans at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, noted that "the various climate sceptics hold very different positions. We can distinguish trend skeptics (who deny there is is harmless or even beneficial). Representatives of the various skeptics' camps quarrel, sometimes ferociously, in internet forums."^[2]

'Trend skeptics', he suggested, are "a gradually vanishing breed" as public understanding of the reality of global warming has risen. These sceptics commonly claim that the surface temperature measurements have been distorted by ther proximity to urban areas, which is referred to as the 'urban heat island effect'. 'In fact, the measured trends have already been adjusted to allow for this effect by comparing adjacent urban and rural stations. The warming above the oceans as measured by ships, the global retreat of glaciers, and the declining Arctic sea ice provide further evidence against this claim," wrote Rahmstorf. These sceptics also often claim that satellite measurements show little, if any, warming trend since the data was first collected in 1979. After allowing for various factors which make direct comparison between data sets difficult, Rahmstorf wrote that the data "show trends between 0.08°C and 0.26°C per decade, compared to 0.17°C per decade found in surface measurements.^[2]

'Attribution skeptics' on the other hand argue that while warming is occurring, it can't be attributed to human activities. These skeptics argue that Co2 emissions originate from the oceans or that increases in CO2 do not result in warming. "The oceans have certainly not released CO2 into the atmosphere; on the contrary, they have absorbed some of the extra fossil CO2 load. (Incidentally, this is leading to an acidification of sea water, causing considerable damage to coral reefs and other marine organisms, even without any climate change)," Rahmstorf wrote. While there are uncertainties about the feedbacks caused by increased greenhouse gases, Rahmstorf noted that "many studies using different approaches have provided increasingly hard evidence that the most likely value of the “climate sensitivity” (i.e. the equilibrium response of the climate to a doubling of the CO2 concentration) is close to 3°C. This results independently both from our physical understanding of the various feedbacks (which can be observed in today’s climate, e.g. in the seasonal cycle) and from an analysis of the role played by CO2 during past climate changes."^[2]

He also noted that arguing that strong feedbacks from increased CO2 could not also claim that warming was caused by other factors such as solar activity. Rahmstorf notes that "solar variations cannot explain the warming in the 20th century. For one thing, they are not large enough; the radiative effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is by now several times stronger. And while reconstructions of solar activity do indicate a rise until 1940, they show no significant trend since then. The same is true of measurements of cosmic rays."^[2]

The 'impact skeptics' argue that there are positive consequences from global warming, such as an extension of the range of agriculture or increased productivity. "In the absence of climate protection measures, we will probably see a warming by several degrees in this century. The most recent comparable period of major global warming occurred when the last ice age ended ~15,000 years ago: at that time, the climate warmed by approx. 5°C in global mean. This warming had serious implications for man and ecosystems. But the process unfolded over a period of 5,000 years – humankind is now threatening to bring about a similarly large climate change within the space of a century. This extraordinarily rapid change would most likely exceed the adaptive capacity of man and nature," Rahmstorf wrote.^[2]

See also Climate change skeptics/common claims and rebuttal.

The Tea Party and climate skeptic candidates in the 2010 U.S. elections

In October 2010, the Wonk Room reported that four 2010 U.S. gubernatorial races featured climate skeptic Republicans in the Midwest (Terry Branstad in Iowa, Sam Brownback in Kansas, Mary Fallin in Oklahoma, and Matt Mead in Wyoming), and five gubernatorial races featured global warming deniers with Tea Party backing, in Florida (Rick Scott), Illinois (Bill Brady), Minnesota (Mark Dayton), Wisconsin (Scott Walker) and Ohio (John Kasich).^[3]

The Wonk Room also found 21 U.S. Congressional races included climate skeptics.^[4]And of the dozens of Republicans vying for the 37 Senate seats in the 2010 election, none supported climate action, after climate advocate Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) lost his primary to Christine O’Donnell. Even former climate advocates Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) voiced reservations on climate regulation. Many of the Senate candidates were signatories of the Koch Industries’ Americans For Prosperity No Climate Tax pledge and the FreedomWorks Contract From America, which asks that America “Reject cap and trade: Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.”^[5]

Skeptics Group Discounts Skeptics Arguments

An internal 1995 document (pdf) of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) -- an industry front group that disbanded in 2002 -- reviewed some of the "contrarian" arguments used by Richard Lindzen, Robert Jastrow and Patrick Michaels and other climate change skeptics. The document, which was obtained as part of a court action against the automobile industry^[6] concluded that of the arguments reviewed:

"The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change. Jastrow's hypothesis about the role of solar variability and Michaels' questions about the temperature record are not convincing arguments against any conclusion that we are currently experiencing warming as the result of greenhouse gas emissions. However, neither solar variability nor anomalies in the temperature record offer a mechanism for off-setting the much larger rise in temperature which might occur if the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases were to double or quadruple.""Lindzen' s hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the uper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change."^[7]

Global Warming's Deadly Denial

Reviewing the continued campaign by climate change skeptics, David McKnight, an associate professor at the University of New South Wales (Australia), notes that there several reasons why companies such as Exxon have had some success playing the global warming denial card. "First, the implications of the science are frightening. Shifting to renewable energy will be costly and disruptive. Second, doubt is an easy product to sell. Climate denial tells us what we all secretly want to hear. Third, science is portrayed as political orthodoxy rather than objective knowledge, a curiously postmodern argument," he writes. While the tobacco industry is often referred to as the template for the fossil fuel industry's campaign, McKnight argues that there is an important distinction. "There are no 'smoke-free areas' on the planet. Climate denial may turn out to be the world's most deadly PR campaign," he concludes. ^[8]^

UK Split Ruling on Climate Change Skeptics

In July 2008, the British government's media regulator, Ofcom, issued a split ruling on "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a film commissioned and broadcast by Channel 4. Ofcom received 265 complaints about the film, including "a detailed 'group complaint' from scientists and concerned individuals that ran to 176 pages and accused Channel 4 of seriously misleading viewers." ^[9]^

Ofcom found that Channel 4 broke impartiality guidelines and the film misrepresented statements by former British government scientist David King, in a scene with global warming skeptic Fred Singer. Ofcom also found that the film unfairly treated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and MIT professor Carl Wunsch. However, Ofcom ruled that the program did not "cause harm or offence" by "materially" misleading viewers. Ofcom also said that its impartiality rules did not apply to the majority of the film, because the rules require balance on "matters of political or industrial controversy" and human-induced climate change has "been almost universally accepted by governments around the world." ^[9]^

Funding

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine argues that the climate change skeptics "assert flatly that their science is untainted by funding. Nevertheless, in this persistent and well-funded campaign of global warming denial they have become interchangeable ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation. Their dissenting opinions are amplified beyond all proportion through the media while the concerns of the dominant majority of the world's scientific establishment are marginalized." [1]

Risk averse skeptics

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension." [2]

Critiquing Skeptics as "Distraction Strategy"

In a blog ahead of the COP15 conference, Senator Christine Milne, Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens and former Vice-President of the IUCN, wrote that "Around the world, governments are explicitly linking the extreme weather events we've seen – heat waves, bushfires, drought and floods – to climate change and using that link to push for the limited action they are willing to take. Attacking climate sceptics for holding back action has also become a favoured mechanism for claiming the moral high ground in the climate debate. This claim to be guided by the science while espousing weak and scientifically unsupportable targets, this climate hypocrisy, is more dangerous than true climate scepticism because it is more insidious."^[10]

Just prior to the COP15 conference, British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, told the Guardian that "With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do. We must now act and close the 5bn-tonne gap. That will seal the deal."^[11]

Government censoring of climate change scientists

U.S.

In 2007, an investigative report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government Accountability Project (GAP) uncovered evidence of widespread political interference in federal climate science. The report, which includes a survey of hundreds of federal scientists at seven federal agencies and dozens of in-depth interviews, documents a high regard for climate change research but broad interference in communicating scientific results.^[12]

UCS distributed surveys to 1,600 climate scientists, asking for information about the state of federal climate research. The scientists who responded reported experiencing at least 435 occurrences of political interference in their work over the past five years. Nearly half of all respondents (46 percent) perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words "climate change," "global warming," or other similar terms from a variety of communications. Forty-three percent of respondents reported they had perceived or personally experienced changes or edits during review of their work that changed the meaning of their scientific findings. And nearly half (46 percent) perceived or personally experienced new or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work. Scientists at the independent but federally-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research, who are not federal employees, reported far fewer instances of interference.^[12]

While a large majority of respondents (88 percent) agreed that federal climate research is of generally excellent quality, respondents reported decreasing job satisfaction and a worsening environment for climate science in federal agencies. Two-thirds of respondents (67 percent) said that today's environment for federal government climate research is worse compared to five years ago. At NASA, three in five scientists reported decreased job satisfaction.^[12]

The GAP investigation, consisting of 40 in-depth interviews with climate scientists and a review of 2,000 agency documents, revealed that agency media policies often unnecessarily hindered scientists' interaction with the media rather than facilitate public dissemination of their research. For instance, Dr. Drew Shindell, an ozone specialist and NASA climatologist, submitted a press release to announce the publication of a paper on climate change. Press officers significantly watered down language that described his findings, and the new research received little notice by the media.^[12]

The Bush Administration also directly edited government scientific reports to downplay the severity of climate change. In June 2005, GAP gave the New York Times internal documents from Climate Change Science Program Associate Rick Piltz’s office showing handwritten edits on several 2002 and 2003 scientific climate change reports. The edits increased and at times overstated the level of uncertainty associated with climate science. According to the New York Times, the edits tended "to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust."^[13]

The edits were made by Philip Cooney, then chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, who formerly worked for the American Petroleum Institute and led the oil industry’s drive to prevent restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.^[13] Mr. Cooney is a lawyer with no scientific training who, upon leaving the Bush Administration, went to work for Exxon.[3]

Canada

In Spring 2010, Natural Resources Canada scientists were told they need "pre-approval" from Minister Christian Paradis's office to speak with national and international journalists about climate change science. The documents show the "new" rules went into force in March 2010 and apply not only to contentious issues including Alberta's tar sands, but also seemingly benign subjects such as floods that occurred 13,000 years ago. Critics say the documents give a glimpse of how Canadians are being cut off from scientists whose work is financed by taxpayers and is often of significant public interest.^[14]

The documents show the new rules being so broadly applied that one scientist was not permitted to discuss a study in a major research journal without "pre-approval" from political staff in Paradis's office. NRCan scientist Scott Dallimore co-authored a study published in the journal Nature on April 1, 2010, about a colossal flood that swept across northern Canada 13,000 years ago, when massive ice dams gave way at the end of the last ice age. The scientific study was considered newsworthy and two British universities issued releases to alert the international media. It was, however, deemed so sensitive in Ottawa that Dallimore, who works at NRCan's laboratories outside Victoria, was told he had to wait for clearance from the minister's office before public dissemination.^[14]

Individual skeptics

• Tony Abbott
• Don Aitkin
• Dennis Avery
• Sallie L. Baliunas
• Tim Ball
• Robert C. Balling
• Glenn Beck, CNN TV
• David Bellamy
• Douglas Carswell M.P.
• Robert (Bob) Carter
• Ian Castles
• John R. Christy
• Ian Clark
• Alexander Cockburn
• Martin Cohen, and philosophical objections to the global warming theorists
• Joseph D'Aleo
• Martin Durkin
• Paul Driessen
• David Evans
• Ray Evans
• The Rt. Rev. Peter R. Forster The Bishop of Chester
• George Fox
• Robert Giegengack
• Bill Gray
• Chris Horner, the author of "Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming
• Sherwood Idso
• Andrei Illarionov, chief economic adviser to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin
• James M. Inhofe
• Aynsley Kellow
• William Kininmonth
• Czech president Vaclav Klaus
• Donna Laframboise
• Lord Lawson
• David Legates
• Marlo Lewis, from the Competitive Enterprise Institute;
• Richard S. Lindzen
• Bjorn Lomborg
• Stephen McIntyre
• Ross McKitrick
• Patrick J. Michaels
• Christopher Monckton
• Andrew Montford
• Alan Moran
• Luboš Motl
• Alan Oxley
• Garth Paltridge
• Tim Patterson
• Roger Pielke Jr.
• Ian Plimer
• Arthur B. Robinson
• Frederick Seitz
• S. Fred Singer
• Willie Soon
• Roy Spencer
• Carlo Stagnaro
• Bob Stallman
• Philip Stott
• John H. Sununu
• George Taylor,
• Wolfgang Thüne
• Jan Veizer
• Len Walker
• Sammy Wilson

Organizational skeptics

• Australian APEC Study Centre
• Competitive Enterprise Institute (US) [4]
• Doctors for Disaster Preparedness
• Exxon-Funded Skeptics
• Friends of Science (Canada)
• George C. Marshall Institute (US)
• Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK)
• Heartland Institute (US)
• Institute of Economic Affairs (UK)
• Institute of Public Affairs (Australia)
• International Climate Science Coalition (NZ)
• International Policy Network (UK)
• Lavoisier Group (Australia)
• Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NSRP) (Canada)
• New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
• Scientific Alliance (UK)
• The United Kingdom House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs
• NZ Center for Policy Research (NZ) [5]
• New Zealand Climate Change Coalition (NZ) [6]

SourceWatch resources

See the related SourceWatch article, Climate change/Related SourceWatch Resources

External links

• Wikipedia, "Global Warming Skepticism"
• Usenet, alt.global-warming discussion
• Greenpeace, "Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine" 2010 report
• Greenpeace, "How ExxonMobil Funds the Climate Change Skeptics"
• Union of Concerned Scientists "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science"
• Environmental Defense Fund, "Global Warming Skeptics: A Primer: For All But a Few Climate Scientists, the Debate Is Over. Guess Who's Paying the Doubters?", June 2, 2004.
• Conal Walsh, "'Denial lobby' turns up the heat: The vocal minority sceptical of the threat of global warming are now targeting the UK," Observer, March 6, 2005.
• Chris Mooney, "Some Like It Hot," Mother Jones, May/June 2005: "Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.
• David Adam, "Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world: Russian pair challenge UK expert over global warming", Guardian (UK), August 19, 2005.
• Andrew C. Revkin, "Panelist Who Dissents on Climate Change Quits," New York Times, August 23, 2005.
• Antonio Regalado, "Global-Warming Skeptics Under Fire: Two New Papers Question Results Used to Challenge Influential Climate Study", Wall Street Journal, October 26, 2005; Page B3. (Sub req'd).
• Barrie Pittock, "In global warming war, may market forces be with you", The Age, January 14, 2006.
• Stefan Rahmstorf, "The Climate Skeptics, Weather catastrophes and climate change The state of science, Munich Re, undated. (Stefan is a member of the IPCC, he disputes the arguements of climate skeptics in this article.)
• Joel Achenbach, "The Tempest: As evidence mounts that humans are causing dangerous changes in Earth's climate, a handful of skeptics are providing some serious blowback", The Washington Post Magazine, May 28, 2006.
• John Stossel, Opinion: "Kyoto's advocates are full of hot air," Manchester Union-Leader, July 9, 2006.
• Polly Toynbee, "The climate-change deniers have now gone nuclear: When the rightwing tradition of bad science comes onside, it's time to look seriously at other energy technologies", The Guardian, July 18, 2006.
• Paul D. Thacker, "Climate skeptics in Europe? Mostly missing in action", Society of Environment Journalists, Summer 2006.
• George Monbiot, "Pundits who contest climate change should tell us who is paying them: Covert lobbying, in the UK as well as the US, has severely set back efforts to combat the world's biggest problem", Guardian (UK), September 26, 2006.
• Where I Stand, Public figures who believe humans should not act to stop global warming - whereIstand.com
• Coby Beck's Blog, How to Talk to a Global Warming Sceptic (endorsed by RealClimate.org)
• Steven Milloy, "Must-See Global Warming TV," FOX News, March 19, 2007.
• Media Matters for America, "Beck's global warming special dominated by industry-funded 'experts,' serial misinformers," May 3, 2007.
• George Monbiot, "Too much at stake to let climate-change sceptics bluff the world", Sydney Morning Herald, May 24, 2007.
• Sharon Begley, "The Truth About Denial," Newsweek, August 13, 2007.
• David McKnight, "The climate change smokescreen", Sydney Morning Herald, August 2, 2008.
• John P. Holdren, "Convincing Climate Change Skeptics", Op-ed, Boston Globe, August 4, 2008.
• John P. Holdren, "'Climate-Change Skeptics Revisited", Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, August 5, 2008.

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

• Climate Change
• Climate Change Deniers
• Heartland Institute/International Conference on Climate Change (2008)
• Heartland Institute/International Conference on Climate Change (2009)
• Researching global warming skeptics
• SourceWatch:Project:Creating Articles on Sponsors and Speakers at The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change
• Climategate

References

1. ↑ See, e.g., the critique, International Environmental Policy, by Aynsley Kellow and Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, pub. Edward Elgar 2002, ISBN 1-84064-818 X
2. ↑ ^2.0^ ^2.1^ ^2.2^ ^2.3^ ^2.4^ Stefan Rahmstorf, "The climate sceptics", Munich Re, Weather catastrophes and climate change, undated but approx 2004.
3. ↑ Brad Johnson, "In Tight Governor Races, Tea Party Climate Deniers Threaten Clean Energy Jobs" The Wonk Room, Oct. 13, 2010.
4. ↑ Brad Johnson, "Heartland Grows New Crop Of Anti-Climate Governor Candidates" The Wonk Room, Oct. 12, 2010.
5. ↑ Brad Johnson, "GOP Senate Candidates Oppose Climate Science And Policy" The Wonk Room, Sep. 29, 2010.
6. ↑ Andrew C. Revkin, "Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate", New York Times, April 23, 2009.
7. ↑ Global Climate Coalition, "Primer on Climate Change Science· Final Draft", January 18, 1996, pages 16-17.
8. ↑ "The Climate Change Smoke Screen", Sydney Morning Herald, August 2, 2008
9. ↑ ^9.0^ ^9.1^ Owen Gibson and David Adam, "Watchdog's verdict on Channel 4 climate film angers scientists: Regulator accused of letting makers off hook; Rules were broken 'but viewers were not misled'," The Guardian (UK), July 22, 2008.
10. ↑ "Crisis rhetoric has to be matched with crisis action", Climate Thinkers Blog, November 2009.
11. ↑ # Damian Carrington and Suzanne Goldenberg, "Gordon Brown attacks 'flat-earth' climate change sceptics", The Guardian, December 4, 2009.
12. ↑ ^12.0^ ^12.1^ ^12.2^ ^12.3^ "Investigation Reveals Widespread Suppression of Federal Climate Research" UCS, January 30, 2007.
13. ↑ ^13.0^ ^13.1^ "Climate Change Research Distorted and Suppressed" UCS, accessed Sep. 24, 2010.
14. ↑ ^14.0^ ^14.1^ Margaret Munro, "Ottawa tightens muzzle" The Gazette, Sep. 13, 2010.

External resources

External articles

• Letter to the editor: James R. Malloch, "Many scientists disagree over global warming," Hi Desert Star (Yucca Valley, California), November 5, 2008.
• Ed Hiserodt, "Liberty From Global-warming Alarmism," The New American, November 12, 2008.

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming_skeptics"

Categories: Climate change | Environment | Science

HOUSE

http://thinkprogress.org/climate-zombie-caucus/?mobile=nc

bold are frosh?

HOUSE

by Brad Johnson, ThinkProgress Wonk Room Climate Editor

Updated 11/23 with elections of Ann Buerkle and Blake Fahrenthold.

One year ago, the right-wing media machine smeared climate scientists with the “Climategate” conspiracy theory, even as the climate itself continued to get hotter and more destructive. Although the National Academies of Science says “the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change,” the Republican Party is now dominated by fossil-funded ideologues who repeat zombie myths about global warming. An exclusive survey by the Wonk Room, with research support by Daily Kos blogger RL Miller, has identified the members of Congress from nearly every state in the union that are on record challenging the scientific consensus:

Click the map to see the 112th Congress climate deniers in each state.

In January, 2011, the 112th Congress will open session, with a huge contingent of Republicans who have explicitly rejected the threat of manmade global warming pollution. These climate zombies express the classic variants of global warming denial: that it is not warming, that cold weather refutes concerns about global warming, that man’s influence is unclear, that climate scientists are engaged in a hoax, scam, or corrupt conspiracy, and that limiting greenhouse pollution would have no impact on global temperatures. Of special note are the conspiracy theorists who argue that hacked emails from climate scientists prove corruption, calling for kangaroo trials against practicing researchers.

Well over half (56 percent) of the incoming Republican caucus are climate zombies. Thirty-five of the 47 (74 percent) Republicans in the U.S. Senate next year publicly question the science of global warming. Of the 242 Republicans elected to the House of Representatives, 128 (53 percent) publicly question the science.

Of the freshmen Republicans — marked in boldface below — 38 of 87 in the House and 11 of 13 in the Senate have publicly questioned the science. Eighty of the freshmen signed the Koch Industries/Americans For Prosperity “No Climate Tax” pledge, and 46 freshmen signed the FreedomWorks-Tea Party Contract From America, which rejects cap and trade. Of the 100 freshmen, 94 have either explicitly denied global warming, signed the Koch pledge, or signed the FreedomWorks pledge. There are no freshmen Republicans, in the House or Senate, who publicly accept the scientific consensus that greenhouse pollution is an immediate threat.

SENATE deniers

desmog 8/13

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

A

Alexandre Aguiar

​ArunAhluwalia

Syun-Ichi Akasofu

Ralph B. Alexander

William JR Alexander

Claude Allègre

Helmut Alt

Gabriel Calzada Alvarez

Klaus F. Angerer

Scott Armstrong

Jerome Arnett

August Auer

Dennis Avery

B

Sallie Baliunas

Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball)

Robert C. Balling Jr.

Jack Barrett

Joseph Bast

Joe Bastardi

Charles Battig

Calvin Beisner

Larry Bell

David Bellamy

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen

Christopher Booker

Donald J. Boudreaux

Alexandra Liddy Bourne

Robert L. Bradley Jr.

Jan Breslow

Barry Brill

Robert Bryce

Reid Bryson

H. Sterling Burnett

C

Nigel Calder

Alan Carlin

Bob Carter

John Charles

Paul Chesser

John R. Christy

Petr Chylek

Ian Clark

Roger Cohen

John Coleman

Jeff Condon

Joseph Conklin

Paul Copper

Roy Cordato

Vincent Courtillot

Richard S. Courtney

Walter Cunningham

Judith Curry

D

Joseph D'Aleo

Edward David

Robert E. Davis

Donn Dears

Anne Debeil

James Delingpole

David Deming

Peter Dietze

Paul Driessen

Harold Doiron

David Douglass

John Droz

Reynald Du Berger

Geoffrey Duffy

John Dale Dunn

Freeman Dyson

E

Don Easterbrook

Gregg Easterbrook

Myron Ebell

Gunter Ederer

Nathalie Elgrably-Lévy

Gary England

Hugh W. Ellsaesser

Alex Epstein

Marcus D. Ernst

Willis Eschenbach

Robert H. Essenhigh

Christopher Essex

David Evans

Ray Evans

Friedrich-Karl Ewert

F

Peter Ferrara

Walter Fett

Richard Fink

Viv Forbes

Bob Foster

Michael Fox

Stewart Franks

Chris de Freitas

Samuele Furfari

G

Dan Gainor

Evelyn Browning-Garriss

Lee C. Gerhard

Gerhard Gerlich

Ivar Giaever

Steven Goddard

Michael H. Goetz

Indur M. Goklany

Fred Goldberg

Stanley Goldenberg

Steve Goreham

Laurence Gould

Vincent Gray

William Gray

Kenneth Green

Kesten Green

H

Ken Haapala

William Happer

Keith D. Hage

Tom Harris

Howard Hayden

Steven F. Hayward

Roger Helmer

David Henderson

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera

Gertrud Höhler

Art Horn

Chris Horner

Douglas V. Hoyt

I

Craig Idso

Sherwood B. Idso

Keith Idso

James Inhofe

Niger Innis

Roy Innis

Kiminori Itoh

J

Albert F. Jacobs

Zbigniew Jaworowski

Claes Goran Johnson

K

Wibjorn Karlen

William Kay

Richard Keen

Don Keiller

Michael Kelly

Madhav Khandekar

William Kininmonth

Vaclav Klaus

Chip Knappenberger

Gerrit Cornelis van Kooten

George Kukla

L

Hans HJ Labohm

Donna Laframboise

Chris Landsea

Nigel Lawson

Douglas Leahey

David Legates

Jay H. Lehr

Ezra Levant

Dan Lewis

Michael Limburg

Richard Lindzen

Gerrit van der Lingen

John Loeffler

Craig Loehle

Bj:{ø:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px"):}:rn Lomborg

Leon Louw

Horst-Joachim Lüdecke

Sebastian Lüning

Anthony Lupo

M

Augusto Mangini

Henri Masson

Alister McFarquhar

James McGrath

Steve McIntyre

Ross McKitrick

Owen McShane

Robert Mendelsohn

Patrick Michaels

Fred Michel

Steve Milloy

Asmunn Moene

A. Alan Moghissi

Christopher Monckton

Andrew Montford

Patrick Moore

Marc Morano

Nils-Axel Morner

Julian Morris

Wolfgang Müller

Robert P. Murphy

Tad Murty

Todd Myers

N

Rodney Nichols

Jacob Nordångard

Bo Nordell

John Nothdurft

Joanne Nova

O

Oregon Petition

Cliff Ollier

P

David H. Padden

Lewis Page

R. Timothy Patterson

Gernot Patzelt

James A. Peden

Benny Peiser

Al Pekarek

Tim Phillips

Ian Plimer

Harry N.A. Priem

Art Pope

Andreas Prokoph

Jim Puplava

R

Richard Rahn

Vijay Kumar Raina

Josef H. Reichholf

Paul Reiter

Matt Ridley

Art Robinson

Arthur Rorsch

Burt Rutan

S

Anthony J. Sadar

Nicola Scafetta

Rob Scagel

Harrison Schmitt

David Schnare

Joel Schwartz

Tom Segalstad

Jim Sensenbrenner

Frederick Seitz

Nir Shaviv

Gary D. Sharp

Paavo Siitam

Joanne Simpson

S. Fred Singer

L. Graham Smith

Willie Soon

Robert C. Shoup (Bob Shoup)

Lawrence Solomon

James Spann

Roy Spencer

H. Leighton Steward

John H. Sununu

Brian Sussman

Henrik Svensmark

Gordon E. Swaters

T

Tom Tanton

Roger Tattersall

George Taylor

James Taylor

Thomasz Teluk

Hendrik Tennekes

Holger J. Thuss

Utz Tillmann

David Tuerck

V

Fritz Vahrenholt

Brian G. Valentine

Jan Veizer

W

James A. Wanliss

Anthony Watts

Gerd-Rainer Weber

Werner Weber

Edward Wegman

David Whitehouse

Boris Winterhalter

Bruno Wiskel

David Wojick

Joel Wood

Todd Wynn

Thomas Wysmuller

Z

Miklós Zágoni

Antonino Zichichi

2007 minory report:

Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400

international scientists:

Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical

Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peerreviewed

studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of

temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by

IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even

0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special

about the recent rise!"

Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the

Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a

2006 paper titled "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on

Earth." "Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive

the temperature impact," Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell

Sorokhtin)

Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the

Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made

climate fears in 2007. "There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate

change], but there's no need to be worried," Uriate wrote.

Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the

development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The

Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally

recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, "I find the Doomsday

picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number -

entirely without merit," Tennekes wrote. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate

reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial,

and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather

Center in Sao Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. "The

media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and

many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the

climate system as the cause of the recent global warming," Hackbart wrote on May 30,

2007.

77

France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin

and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a

climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming - Myth or Reality? -

The Erring Ways of Climatology. "Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is

warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts' and ‘sea level rises,' the

Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the

average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Nonbelievers

in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the

existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"

Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the

Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with

the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2

lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible

amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."

Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological

Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki,

criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. "The effect of

solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there

seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic

radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in

global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of

greenhouse gases," Winterhalter said.

Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in

Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. "I consider the part of the IPCC report, which

I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong," Mangini

noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: "The earth will not die."

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a

scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years

experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published

nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and

Modeling: "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for

major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft)

with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to

directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate

on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable

scientific review process."

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist

with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed

climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done

by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop

worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.

78

India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the

Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "We appear to be

overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened

in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles."

USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association

of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to

review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: "Al Gore brought me back to

the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And

because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about

climate change I have decided that ‘real' climatologists should try to help the public

understand the nature of the problem."

Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World

Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University

of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: "Significant new

peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous humancaused

global warming."

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray,

an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and

author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: "The

[IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the

report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide

environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon

dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so."

South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa's Atomic Energy

Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: "The globalwarming

mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With

religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming."

Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for

the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in

Warsaw: "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made

global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for

politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of

the atmospheric CO2 levels."

Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and

Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work

emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation

between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation."

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate

and atmospheric science consultant: "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW

(anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior

is not consistent with AGW model predictions."

79

China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively

Exaggerated' - Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan's and Sun Xian's 2007 study published in the

peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2

greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively

exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global

climate change."

Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish

National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the

Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member

of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peerreviewed

papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: "The sun is the source of the

energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate.

Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect

climate."

Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of

Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the

Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. "Another of these hysterical

views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many

persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on

climate."

USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in

Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public

Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: "In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar

variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the

puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The

GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this." Wojick added: "The public is not well

served by this constant

pop tech list:

Skeptical Organizations:

Abundant Wildlife Society of North America, USA

Accuracy In Media, USA

AccuWeather, USA

Acton Institute, USA

Adam Smith Institute, UK

Advancement of Sound Science Center, USA

Advocates for Self Government, USA

Air Quality Standards Coalition, USA

Alabama Policy Institute, USA

Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, USA

Alternate Solutions Institute, Pakistan

America's Future Inc., USA

American Conservative Union, USA

American Council on Science and Health, USA

American Enterprise Institute, USA

American Institute for Economic Research, USA

American Land Rights Association, USA

American Legislative Exchange Council, USA

American Policy Center, USA

American Spectator Foundation, USA

Americans for Limited Government, USA

Americans for Prosperity, USA

Americans for Prosperity Foundation, USA

Americans for Tax Reform, USA

Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, USA

Annapolis Institute, USA

Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology (FAEC), Argentina

Arizona State University Office of Cimatology, USA

Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University, USA

Asociación de Consumidores Libres, Costa Rica

Association for Liberal Thinking, Turkey

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, USA

Association of British Drivers, UK

Atlas Economic Research Foundation, USA

Australian APEC Study Centre, Australia

Australian Libertarian Society, Australia

Ayn Rand Institute, USA

Blue Ribbon Coalition, USA

Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy, USA

Bureaucrash Foundation, USA

Business & Media Institute, USA

Canada Free Press, Canada

Capital Research Center (CRC), USA

Carbon Sense Coalition, Australia

Cascade Policy Institute, USA

Cathay Institute of Public Affairs, China

Cato Institute, USA

CEDICE LIBERTAD, Venezuela

Centro de Innovación y Desarrollo Humano, Uruguay

CEPOS, Denmark

CEPPRO, Paraguay

Center for Freedom and Prosperity, USA

Center for Global Food Issues, USA

Center for Science and Public Policy, USA

Center for the Advancement of Energy Markets (CAEM), USA

Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, USA

Center for the Dissemination of Economic Information, Venezuela

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, USA

Center for the Study of Popular Culture, USA

Centre for Independent Studies, Australia

Centre for Policy Studies (CPS), UK

China's Research Center for Economic Transition, China

CIEN, Guatemala

CIIMA-ESEADE, Argentina

Citizens Against Government Waste, USA

Citizens for the Environment and CFE Action Fund, USA

Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change, International

Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, USA

Claremont Institute, USA

Clean Water Industry Coalition, USA

Club For Growth, USA

Coalition for Affordable American Energy (CAAE), USA

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, USA

Committee for Economic Development, USA

Competitive Enterprise Institute, USA

Concerned Women for America, USA

Congress for Racial Equality (CORE), USA

Cooler Heads Coalition, USA

Cornwall Allliance, USA

DCI Group, USA

Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP), USA

Discovery Institute, USA

Eagle Forum, USA

Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), USA

Environment Probe, Canada

European Center for Economic Growth, Austria

Family Research Council, USA

Federalist Society, USA

Federazione Ambiente Agricoltura, Italy

FORCES International, USA

Foundation for American Communications, USA

Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), USA

Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE), USA

Fraser Institute, Canada

Free Congress Foundation, USA

Free Enterprise Education Institute, USA

Free Enterprise Institute, USA

Free Market Foundation, South Africa

FreedomWorks, USA

Friends of Science, Canada

Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP), Canada

Frontiers of Freedom Institute, USA

Fundacion Atlas 1853, Argentina

Fundacion Libertad, Panama

Future of Freedom Foundation, USA

George C. Marshall Institute, USA

Global Climate Coalition, USA

Grassfire.org, USA

Greening Earth Society, USA

Greenspirit, USA

Heartland Institute, USA

Heritage Foundation, USA

High Park Group, Canada

Hispanic American Center for Economic Research, USA

Hoover Institution, USA

Hudson Institute, USA

IEEP, Ecuador

Imani: The Centre for Humane Education, Ghana

Independent Institute, USA

Information Council on the Environment, USA

Initiative of Public Policy Analysis, Nigeria

INLAP, Costa Rica

Institut Constant de Rebecque, Switzerland

Institute for Canadian Values, Canada

Institute for Energy Research, USA

Institute for Free Enterprise, Germany

Institute for Global Economic Growth (IGEG), USA

Institute for Humane Studies, USA

Institute for Liberty, USA

Institute for Market Economics, Bulgaria

Institute for Policy Innovation, USA

Institute for Regulatory Science, USA

Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation (IRET), USA

Institute for the Study of Earth and Man, USA

Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development, USA

Institute of Economic Affairs, UK

Institute of Economic Analysis, Russia

Institute of Public Affairs, Australia

Institute on Religion and Public Life, USA

Instituto de Libre Empresa, Peru

Instituto Liberdade, Brazil

Instituto Veritas, Honduras

Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, USA

International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA

International Climate Science Coalition, Canada

International Policy Network, UK

International Society for Individual Liberty, USA

Istituto Bruno Leoni, Italy

Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, Israel

John Birch Society, USA

John Locke Foundation, USA

Lavoisier Group, Australia

League of Private Property Voters, USA

Liberales Institut, Switzerland

Liberalni Institute, Czech Republic

Libertad y Desarrollo, Chile

Libertarian Alliance, UK

Libertarian Futurist Society, USA

Libertarian International, The Netherlands

Liberty Institute, India

Lion Rock Institute, Hong Kong

Lithuanian Free Market Institute, Lithuania

Ludwig von Mises Institute, USA

MacIver Institute, USA

Mackinac Center for Public Policy, USA

Maine Heritage Policy Center, USA

Media Research Center, USA

Mercatus Center at George Mason University, USA

Milton & Rose D. Friedman Foundation, USA

Minimal Government Thinkers, Philippines

Montreal Economic Institute, Canada

National Anxiety Center, USA

National Center for Policy Analysis, USA

National Center for Public Policy Research, USA

National Chamber Foundation (NCF), USA

National Motorists Association, USA

National Taxpayers Union, USA

Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Canada

New Coalition for Economic and Social Change

New Hope Environmental Services, USA

New Zealand Business Roundtable, New Zealand

New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, New Zealand

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA

Pacific Legal Foundation, USA

Pacific Research Institute, USA

Polyconomics Institute, USA

Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), USA

Property Rights Foundation of America, USA

Reason Foundation, USA

Reason Public Policy Institute, USA

Rockford Institute, USA

Schiller Institute, USA

Science & Environmental Policy Project, USA

Science & Public Policy Institute, USA

Scientific Alliance, UK

Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, USA

Sovereignty International, USA

St. Lawrence Institute, Canada

State Policy Network, USA

Sustainable Development Network, UK

TaxPayer's Alliance, UK

Tennessee Center for Policy Research, USA

The 60 Plus Association, USA

The Atlas Society (TAS), USA

Thoreau Institute, USA

Tropical Meteorology Project, USA

TSAugust, USA

Urban Renaissance Institute, Canada

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, USA

Washington Policy Center, USA

Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy, USA

wiki

Pages in category "Organizations of environmentalism skeptics and critics"

The following 42 pages are in this category, out of 42 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).

Categories: 

• Environmental skepticism
• Skeptic organisations