Ebell, M

===

6/14 tag eboy (ebell-milloy) i thought milloy had huge edge, but not so sure 41 red/grn (milloy 70)EBELL 2 on trump12/16 i can find no ggl doc on him, not ideol entre, hacksinger...BAK 1 23 (TXT)
smoking gun glob sci comm action plan
HTML endit1

=no lnx<a href="https://apps.publicintegrity.org/united-states-of-petroleum/fueling-dissent/">https://apps.publicintegrity.org/united-states-of-petroleum/fueling-dissent/</a>‘A lot like climate’In June, two peer-reviewed studies trumpeted a conclusion at odds with years of solid science: fine-particle pollution long linked to premature death and chronic illness isn’t as dangerous as health advocates contend. If true, the findings would call into question health benefits claimed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has set ever-tightening air-quality standards.There was a catch, however. The articles — which were published within a week of one another — appeared in Critical Reviews in Toxicology and Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, two journals favored by industry consultants alleged to promote pay-for-play science. And both studies were funded by API, a trade group that has spent $40 million since 2013 to lobby Congress on topics ranging from taxes to global warming.[twitter]“Our study is published...air quality does not kill. $600 million of EPA junk science up in smoke,” climate-change skeptic and Donald Trump acolyte Steve Milloy tweeted in June, linking to the Regulatory Toxicology article. During a congressional luncheon a month later, the former coal executive took credit for conceiving the study before turning it over to friend, S. Stanley Young, and two other statisticians, who authored the final article. No mention of Milloy’s involvement is made in the publication.Read more about how Big Oil is trying to sow skepticism of science among judges ]Some of the same data were used in the Critical Reviews article published by Louis Anthony “Tony” Cox Jr., which also disputed the link between fine particles and mortality. Cox, a biostatistician from Colorado, started consulting for API in 1988. Cox disclosed that his paper “benefitted from close proofreading and copy-editing suggestions from API” but denied in an interview that his findings were influenced. In November, he was named the next chair of the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, drawing criticism from groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists.The science on particle pollution, much like the science on global warming, is exhaustive and widely accepted, with thousands of studies pointing to serious health implications. The World Health Organization notes that particulate matter “affects more people than any other pollutant,” with effects observed at even “very low concentrations.” The particles — found in automotive and industrial exhaust and smaller than one-fifth of the width of a strand of hair — form a toxic mix with ozone that lodges deep in the lungs. Unlike Cox, most researchers are no longer fixated on whether this form of pollution is fundamentally dangerous; they worry instead about whether it can cause — not just exacerbate — chronic illness.Attacking the science is one way of undermining the Clean Air Act, said John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council, which advocates for more protective air-quality standards. The Clean Air Act is routinely hailed as one of the most cost-effective federal laws, even by business groups. In 2015, the EPA estimated that the law will have saved the U.S. economy $2 trillion by 2020 while costing $65 billion to implement. About 85 percent of the act’s benefits come from reducing fine-particle pollution, which raises the risk of early death. Opponents of the law “deny that air pollution is deadly … or even harmful in order to try to pretend that no benefits are delivered,” Walke said.Steve Milloymilloy’s July luncheon at the Rayburn House Office Building — billed as a “congressional staff and media briefing” — was little more than a plug for his latest book, “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA,” which condemns the “echo chamber of deceptive science” on ozone and fine particles. The event was hosted by Myron Ebell, who chairs the Cooler Heads Coalition, a climate-skeptics’ group that began as an alliance of free-market think tanks. “It’s a lot like climate,” Milloy told the audience. “This stuff is pulled out of thin air.”“It’s a lot like climate... This stuff is pulled out of thin air.”Reached for comment, Milloy said the study is not an attack on the Clean Air Act but part of his 20-year effort to expose the EPA’s “garbage-in, garbage-out” air pollution research. He denied having any formal ties to API. “I am very, very disappointed in the American Petroleum Institute and all the oil companies for not defending their products, for leaving the science to people like me,” he said.Young, who authored the study, stood behind its findings and disputed the idea that industry funding presents ethical conflicts. His study data are publicly available, he said, but the EPA isn’t as transparent. Ebell agreed, accusing the agency of using “junk science” to justify air-quality and greenhouse-gas regulation.
Despite their misgivings about the EPA, all three men have become tethered to the agency. Earlier this year, Ebell oversaw the EPA transition for Trump, leading a group that included Milloy. Young was named to the EPA’s Science Advisory Board in October.<a href="https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse</a>, D-R.I., co-founder of the Senate Climate Action Task Force, complained that such appointments have become all too common.  “These people were fringe fanatics and industry stooges fighting on behalf of the industry a propaganda war against science,” he said.Milloy and Ebell were listed among the authors of a $2 million plan to amplify uncertainty in climate science — as revealed in a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/26/us/industrial-group-plans-to-battle-climate-treaty.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">1998 API memo</a> leaked to The New York Times. Both say the memo grew out of an API brainstorming session that never resulted in concrete action, with Milloy calling it “just a big joke.”Years before, API had refuted the very concept of global warming under President Charles DiBona, who joined the institute shortly after a stint as energy policy advisor to Richard Nixon in the 1970s. White House communications show that DiBona regularly met with then-API President Frank Ikard, a close friend of Nixon’s, before becoming Ikard’s deputy in 1974....==still on the job, deja vu<div>=</div><div> Friday, the White House stunned many after it released a sweeping <a href="https://science2017.globalchange.gov/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">report</a> concluding that climate change is not only real, but it also poses a major threat to the U.S. and humans are "extremely likely" to be responsible.The 477-page National Climate Assessment, which was mandated by Congress and reviewed by 13 federal agencies, contracted with President Trump's notorious stance on global warming as a "<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-climate-change-hoax-2018812943.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">hoax</a>." It also defied Trump's continued efforts to dismantle environmental regulations on both the national and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/cop23-thousands-march-2506729920.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">international scale</a>.So why did the Trump White House release a report contradicting the president and much of his administration's stance on climate change?Well, as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-06/how-the-trump-white-house-wound-up-releasing-dire-climate-report" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Bloomberg</a> reports, "don't read much into it":<blockquote style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Public drafts of the report have circulated for months, making it politically perilous to tinker with the findings. So, with editing a high-risk affair and the report required by Congress, the administration may have just decided to downplay it, said John Holdren, who ran the Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Barack Obama."It would do more harm to block this report than to let it out," Holdren, now a Harvard University environmental policy professor, said in an interview. "They're letting it out on a Friday afternoon, which is pretty much the standard approach for letting out something that you don't want to get a lot of attention."</blockquote>The other reason? Blame Obama. The report has been <a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/climate/us-climate-report.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">in the works since 2015</a>."It is unfortunate that the Trump Administration has released these Obama-era climate reports, without attempting to remove the junk science—and the reports are full of junk science," fervent climate change denier and former Trump EPA transition team leader Myron Ebell told Bloomberg.The White House has also distanced itself from the main conclusion of the special report. In a <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-report-says-humans-extremely-likely-to-blame-for-warming/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Friday statement</a>, White House spokesperson Raj Shah used familiar climate-skeptic talking points to dismiss the findings."The climate has changed and is always changing. As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on 'remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,'" Shah said. "In the United States, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have been declining, are expected to remain flat through 2040, and will also continue to decline as a share of world emissions."Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) has <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-climate-website-2498932391.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">removed the phrase</a> "climate change" from its websites and has <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-science-advisors-2504339714.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">prohibited its own scientists</a> from speaking about the issue.Additionally, Common Dreams <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/11/04/ahead-cop23-climate-talks-tens-thousands-march-demanding-end-era-fossil-fuels" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">reported</a> on Saturday that President Trump is looking to use the COP23 climate talks as a platform to sell fossil fuels—and coal in particular—as necessary and beneficial.</div><div> </div><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/09/27/climate-science-denialist-myron-ebell-named-trump-adviser">http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/09/27/climate-science-denialist-myron-ebell-named-trump-adviser</a>
mann bk: ch 14 climategate
11/17/09 bs pr sez "random" but targeted scrape of names: MM santer, briffa, trenberth, jones
1st www link by McI (hack from N Am via turkey), then saudi (used at Cop 15) --> USSR server
"smoking gun" ebell --> meme ~ AGWalo pat michaels "gate-keeper" final nail in coffin)
--> inhohe igloo bs, Palin WaPWait a minute. How could that be? ExxonMobil is funding denier groups, but it's not funding climate science denial?"We were engaged with funding public policy groups on policy issues, not on science," Alan Jeffers, an ExxonMobil media relations manager, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/01/this-is-how-climate-doubt-becomes-powerful-and-spreads-into-the-media/" target="hplink" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">explained</a> to the Post. "We made our position known on some climate policies that made us unpopular with environmental activists, and they tried to position that as us funding climate denial. And that's just not accurate."

Wow. Company lawyers may have told Jeffers to say that to distance ExxonMobil from its denier grantees, but he should know better. He surely must be aware that the dozens of think tanks and advocacy groups his company has been financing constantly disparage and distort mainstream climate science. After all, if enough people think climate science is a fraud -- or at least "far from settled" -- why bother with climate policies?OK. Let's give Kenneth Cohen and his staff the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they haven't been paying attention to what ExxonMobil grantees have been saying about climate science. They're busy people, right? So, as a public service, here's a sampling of typical statements from some the company's denier groups to illustrate the absurdity of ExxonMobil's latest line of defense.CEI: Carbon Pollution? "We Call it Life."A prime example of an ExxonMobil denier group is the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which -- like a number of other fossil fuel industry-funded groups -- cut its teeth fronting for the tobacco industry in the 1990s to stave off tighter government regulation. CEI is the very same think tank that reassured Americans back in 2006 that global warming is nothing to worry about in a <a href="http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/carbon-dioxide-spot-they-call-it-ad-we.html" target="hplink" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">TV commercial</a> praising the benefits of carbon dioxide. The spot's unforgettable tag line: "They call it pollution. We call it life."

Myron Ebell, director of CEI's Center for Energy and the Environment, is the organization's chief spokesman on climate. He is not a scientist. No one in his center is a scientist. Neither Ebell nor CEI conduct any scientific research. But that hasn't stopped Ebell from posing as a climate expert.

Between 1998 and 2005, when ExxonMobil gave CEI more than $2 million, Ebell became one of the most prominent denier talking heads, providing reporters with the "other side" of the climate science story. For example, when the Washington Post reported in January 2003 that the U.N. World Meteorological Organization determined that nine of the 10 hottest years on record had occurred since 1990, Ebell was happy to dismiss the finding out of hand. "The climate is always changing," he <a href="http://www.iatp.org/news/bizarre-weather-ravages-africans-crops-some-see-link-to-worldwide-warming-trend" target="hplink" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">said</a>. "There's always weird weather somewhere in the world. There are just way too many uncertainties to start attributing these things to greenhouse gases."Ebell also ridicules computer modeling to try to undermine public confidence in basic climate science methodology. "Modeling is not science," what he <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26605-2004Dec1.html" target="hplink" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">told</a> theWashington Post in December 2004, is his usual refrain. Eight years later, he was singing the same song. In March 2012, the New York Times asked him for his take on two peer-reviewed studies that estimated 3.7 million Americans are at risk from coastal flooding due to rising sea levels. "As a society," he <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/science/earth/study-rising-sea-levels-a-risk-to-coastal-states.html?r=1" target="hplink" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">said</a>, "we could waste a fair amount of money on preparing for sea level rise if we put our faith in models that have no forecasting ability."In fact, contrary to Ebell's claims, climate models have proven to be quite accurate. A March 2013 peer-reviewed <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming" target="hplink" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">paper</a> in the journal Nature Geoscience, for example, found that the models accurately predicted the rise in global temperatures over the previous 15 years to within a few hundredths of a degree.<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/exxonmobil-denial-about-climate-science-denial">http://www.alternet.org/environment/exxonmobil-denial-about-climate-science-denial</a>

CEI’s Ebell: Warming Alarmists Still ‘In Denial’ Over Climate Data

Attempts to Spin IPCC Report Amount To ‘Childish Fantasy; Cover-Your-Backside BS’

By Brian McNicoll • September 27, 2013

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27, 2013 – Disappointed in results that show the warming trends of the 1990s seem to have ended, the environmental left has stepped up efforts to whitewash a key document that will become part of the next report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The spin already has begun, said Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (cei.org) in Washington. But the facts don’t change. The world has not warmed in any significant way in the last 16 years, and the threats from ocean levels rising and other alleged problems are supremely overblown, he said.

“The global warming establishment is in denial over the still-widening divergence between the models and reality,” Ebell said. “The modelers dominate the public debate and the IPCC reports, but their predictions in the past 20 years have been disproved by reality.  If they can't even come close to predicting the global mean temperature for 10 or 20 years, how can they possibly predict the gmt for 50 or 100 years? Models tend to diverge from reality the further away from the starting point they go.

“They can't, and now everyone can see that they can't. The IPCC summary is merely further evidence of this denial of reality. They are living in cloud-cuckoo land or, perhaps more accurately, they are remarkably similar to the projectors in Gulliver's third voyage. Most people now understand this. The major groups that don't are, in this country, the bicoastal urban elite, and, in England, what are called London's chattering class.

“On one particular point, the idea that warming would continue for hundreds of years even if the level of greenhouse gases was stabilized at the current level immediately is poppycock. CO2 levels have gone up 12 percent in the past 16 years, but the gmt has remained flat. A higher ghg level has an almost immediate effect.

“Check higher water vapor levels in Singapore compared to the Sahara – as soon as the sun goes down it gets cooler in the Sahara but not much in Singapore. The warming doesn't hide somewhere, which is what the alarmists are now claiming – for example, in the deep oceans. This is conjecture at the level of childish fantasy. What is the mechanism for hiding the warming in the deep ocean before it appears in the atmosphere or the shallow ocean? No one can explain the occult process that transmits the so-called greenhouse effect to the deep ocean simply because there is no process known to physical science.

“This is cover-your-backside BS concocted by the alarmists, and it is shameful and deeply disturbing that they are not being laughed off the stage and out of paid employment by the informed media and other authorities. To sum up: Nothing the IPCC can claim at this point can change the debate, which is over: Global warming may become a problem at some point in the next 50 or 100  years – although the chances are slim. But it is not now a crisis, and we need to stop acting as if it were.”

===

bs director bio

Myron Ebell is Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy at CEI and chairs the Cooler Heads Coalition, which comprises over two dozen non-profit groups in this country and abroad that question global warming alarmism and oppose energy rationing policies.

Ebell has appeared as a guest on numerous television shows, including the ABC Evening News, NBC Nightly News, PBS News Hour, BBC Newsnight, BBC World, CNBC, CNN, C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, MSNBC, ITN, Voice of America, Televisa, Sky TV, Al Jazeera, PBS’s NOW, Fox News's Special Report with Bret Baier, O'Reilly Factor, and Hannity and Colmes.

He has spoken frequently on a variety of BBC radio news shows and on hundreds of radio talk shows.

Ebell's writings have appeared in a variety of publications, including the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Forbes, London’s Guardian, Standpoint Magazine, Riverside Press Enterprise, Philadelphia Inquirer, and Environmental Law Forum.

Ebell holds a B.A. from Colorado College and an M.S. from the London School of Economics. He also did graduate work at the University of California at San Diego and at Peterhouse, Cambridge University.

==

did not list:

Myron Ebell on PBS Frontline: "Climate of Doubt"

October 25, 2012

A growing number of Americans doubt the urgency or existence of man-made global warming. On Tuesday, October 23, PBS Frontline took a look at the men and women who have helped shift public opinion---chief among them, CEI's Myron Ebell.

Myron Ebell responds to Frontline in a CEI LibertyWeek Podcast here. Watch "Climate of Doubt" yourself and tell us what you think on Twitter or Facebook. Was Frontline fair to questioners and dissenters?

==

Climate science is apparently so controversial for Republican members of the House of Representatives that they can't approve legislation that would create an honorary position of science laureate for the United States.

A bipartisan group of senators and House members <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/science-laureate-united-states" style="list-style: outside none none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer;">proposed legislation</a> in May to create this position for an expert in his or her field who "would travel around the country to inspire future scientists."

The president <a href="http://www.hirono.senate.gov/press-releases/hirono-wicker-lofgren-smith-introduce-bill-to-create-a-science-laureate-of-the-united-states" style="list-style: outside none none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer;">would select</a> up to three laureates to serve terms of one to two years from a pool of candidates approved by the National Academy of Sciences. The laureates "would be empowered to speak to Americans on the importance of science broadly and scientific issues of the day."

But as <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/science-laureate-united-states" style="list-style: outside none none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px none; outline: 0px none; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer;">Science reports</a>, what was supposed to be an easy House vote this week to approve the honorary (read: unpaid) position was tabled after a conservative group objected:

<blockquote style="list-style: none; margin: 15px 0px; padding: 15px; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); line-height: 21px; background-color: rgb(240, 240, 240);">The bill was never discussed in any committee, however, and Larry Hart of the American Conservative Union hit the roof when he saw it on the House calendar for the next day. (The Washington, D.C.-based group calls itself “the oldest and largest grassroots conservative organization in the nation.”) In a letter to other conservative organizations and every House member, Hart said the bill would give President Barack Obama the opportunity to appoint someone “who will share his view that science should serve political ends, on such issues as climate change and regulation of greenhouse gases.” He also called the bill “a needless addition to the long list of presidential appointments.”</blockquote>

House leadership pulled the bill from the schedule. It's now expected to go back to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology for a debate.

But Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute told Science that climate-change deniers will object to the measure no matter what happens in committee. “There’s no way to make it work,” Ebell said. “It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we’re opposed to it."

==

465$m from exxon 2003 war on sci p 95

2004 $270K cei, $250K to F of F, $170 GMI

CEI sued over nat'l assessment in 2000 p 96, w/ CEI sued clinton admin on nat'l assess [horner?]

-----

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

Myron Ebell directs the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_and_International_Environmental_Policy&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Global Warming and International Environmental Policy (page does not exist)">Global Warming and International Environmental Policy</a> project at the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute" title="Competitive Enterprise Institute">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a> (CEI) and the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cooler_Heads_Coalition" title="Cooler Heads Coalition">Cooler Heads Coalition</a>, which was formed on May 6, 1997, "to dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific and risk analysis."

Ebell formerly worked at the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom" title="Frontiers of Freedom">Frontiers of Freedom</a>, on issues including "property rights, the Endangered Species Act, federal-lands policies, and global warming," and as a legislative assistant to Representative <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Shadegg" title="John Shadegg">John Shadegg</a>. He's also worked for the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Land_Rights_Association" title="American Land Rights Association">American Land Rights Association</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Taxpayers_Union" title="National Taxpayers Union">National Taxpayers Union</a>. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell#cite_note-0" title="">[1]</a> Both CEI and Frontiers of Freedom have received funding from <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ExxonMobil" class="mw-redirect" title="ExxonMobil">ExxonMobil</a>. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell#cite_note-1" title="">[2]</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell#cite_note-2" title="">[3]</a>

"Though he likes to bash scientists for working outside their degreed fields, Ebell, it turns out, isn't a scientist at all," a Vanity Fair article on Ebell stated. "He majored in philosophy at the University of California in San Diego, then studied political theory at the London School of Economics and history at Cambridge." Ebell retorted, "Every interview I do, when I'm asked about scientific issues, I say I'm not a climate scientist. I'm just giving you the informed layman's perspective." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell#cite_note-3" title="">[4]</a>

<h2>Contents</h2>

</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell#On_global_warming">1 On global warming</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell#On_air_pollution">2 On air pollution</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell#Biography">3 Biography</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell#Quotations">4 Quotations</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell#Contact_information">5 Contact information</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell#Articles_and_resources">6 Articles and resources</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell#Related_SourceWatch_articles">6.1 Related SourceWatch articles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell#References">6.2 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell#External_resources">6.3 External resources</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell#External_articles">6.4 External articles</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>On global warming</h2>

Ebell is a speaker at the <a class="mw-redirect" title="International Conference on Climate Change (2009)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29" style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">International Conference on Climate Change (2009)</a> organized by the <a title="Heartland Institute" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute">Heartland Institute</a> <a class="mw-redirect" title="Think tank" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Think_tank">think tank</a>. <a title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell#cite_note-4">[5]</a>

In September 2003, <a title="Greenpeace" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greenpeace">Greenpeace</a> obtained evidence in the form of a [<a class="external free" title="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/investigation-of-exxon-front-g" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/investigation-of-exxon-front-g">http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/investigation-of-exxon-front-g</a> memo] to <a title="Philip A. Cooney" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_A._Cooney">Philip A. Cooney</a> dated March 2002, outlining their strategy for dealing with the problems caused by scientifically-based "Climate Action Report 2002", which the US government had submitted to the UN. The crucial paragraph of this memo reads:

<dl>

<dd>

"As I said, we made the decision this morning to do as much as we could to deflect criticism by blaming the EPA for freelancing. It seems to me that the folks at the EPA are the obvious fall guys, and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high up as possible. I have done several interviews and have stressed that the president needs to get everyone rowing in the same direction. Perhaps tomorrow we will call for (<a title="Christine Todd Whitman" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christine_Todd_Whitman">Christine Todd Whitman</a>) to be fired. I know that that doesn't sound like much help, but it seems to me that our only leverage to push you in the right direction is to drive a wedge between the President and those in the Administration who think they are serving the president's best interests by publishing this rubbish."

----

</dd>

</dl>

<h3>External resources</h3>

<ul>

<li><a class="external text" title="http://cei.org/archive_for_author/133" rel="nofollow" href="http://cei.org/archive_for_author/133">List of Ebell's publications</a>, on the <a title="Competitive Enterprise Institute" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a> site.</li>

<li><a class="external text" title="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=280" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=280">Myron Ebell factsheet</a>," ExxonSecrets.org.</li>

</ul>

<h3>External articles</h3>

<ul>

<li>"<a class="external text" title="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_climate_20041104.ram" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_climate_20041104.ram">With the Queen in Germany worrying about climate change, will we see any change in George Bush's attitude over the next four years?</a>", Radio 4, BBC, November 4, 2004. (The relevant section on how Bush's climate change policy is not going to change, and all the climate scientists have it wrong starts at 3:44).</li>

<li>Joel Achenbach, "<a class="external text" title="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305.html" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305.html">The Tempest:</a> 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.</li>

<li>

</li>

<li>Michael Shnayerson, "<a class="external text" title="http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/skeptic200705" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/skeptic200705">A Convenient Untruth</a>: For the obligatory 'opposing view' on climate change, the media often turn to Myron Ebell, policy analyst, sound-bite artist, and oil-industry mouthpiece. While mainstream experts see global warming as a major cri...</li>

</ul>

<div>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell</div>

<div>

</div>

</td><td class="mbox-text">This article's <a class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:TONE" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TONE">tone</a> or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Specific concerns may be found on the <a title="Talk:Myron Ebell" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Myron_Ebell">talk page</a>. See Wikipedia's <a class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles">guide to writing better articles</a> for suggestions. (December 2008)</td></tr></tbody></table>

</td><td class="mbox-text">This article may require <a title="Wikipedia:Cleanup" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanup">cleanup</a> to meet Wikipedia's <a title="Wikipedia:Manual of Style" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style">quality standards</a>. Please <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell&action=edit">improve this article</a> if you can. (December 2008)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Myron Ebell (born in <a title="Baker County, Oregon" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_County,Oregon">Baker County, Oregon</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-ceibio-0">[1]</a>) is an American <a class="mw-redirect" title="Climate change skeptic" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_skeptic">climate change skeptic</a>. He is the Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the <a title="Competitive Enterprise Institute" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a> (CEI), a non-profit public policy organization founded in 1984 by <a title="Fred L. Smith" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_L.Smith">Fred L. Smith, Jr</a>. Ebell directs and oversees all aspects of energy policy education and advocacy for CEI. He is also the Chairman of the <a title="Cooler Heads Coalition" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooler_Heads_Coalition">Cooler Heads Coalition</a>, an informal and ad-hoc policy group that works on the economics, science, and risk analysis associated with global warming.

His main job is to provide material to the media in the form of quotes to newspaper reporters and participation in live interviews on the subject of climate change. His positions at various times are: (a) climate change isn't happening, (b) it is happening, but it's not because of human released CO2, (c) it is happening, and may be human induced, but it will be much cheaper to adapt to the change than to ration the use of fossil fuels, (d) it is happening and the consequences will be good for the environment.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-forbesart-1">[2]</a>

He has been described as a presidential advisor to <a title="George W. Bush" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush">George W. Bush</a> in several media outlets.[<a title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed">citation needed</a>] He was associated with presidential advisor <a title="Philip Cooney" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Cooney">Philip Cooney</a> in an email about plans to take forward litigation against the EPA.

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a class="internal" id="togglelink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#">hide</a>]</div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#Education_and_scholarly_work">1 Education and scholarly work</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#Global_Warming">2 Global Warming</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#Media_appearances">2.1 Media appearances</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#Writings">2.2 Writings</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#Litigation">2.3 Litigation</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-6"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#Other_writings">3 Other writings</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-7"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#Previous_work">4 Previous work</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-8"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#External_links">5 External links</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-9"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#References">6 References</a></li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>[<a title="Edit section: Education and scholarly work" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell&action=edit&section=1">edit</a>] Education and scholarly work</h2>

Ebell graduated from <a title="Colorado College" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_College">Colorado College</a> with a B.A. and obtained an M.Sc. from the <a title="London School of Economics" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_School_of_Economics">London School of Economics</a>. He did some graduate work at the <a class="mw-redirect" title="University of California at San Diego" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California_at_San_Diego">University of California at San Diego</a> and at <a class="mw-redirect" title="Peterhouse College" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterhouse_College">Peterhouse College</a>, Cambridge University.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-ceibio-0">[1]</a>

<h2>[<a title="Edit section: Global Warming" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell&action=edit&section=2">edit</a>] Global Warming</h2>

<h3>[<a title="Edit section: Media appearances" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell&action=edit&section=3">edit</a>] Media appearances</h3>

For a period of years up until 2005, Ebell published a fortnightly "Cooler Heads Project" Newsletter detailing what he claimed were controversies in the climate science field, as well as reports on the political and legislative failures by the environmentalists he opposes.

In his writings up to until August 2004<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-2">[3]</a> he frequently claimed that a known disparity between the computer <a class="mw-redirect" title="Climate models" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_models">climate models</a> and a series of balloon and satellite measurements of the atmosphere cast doubt on the theory. After the errors were corrected, he stopped mentioning them.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-3">[4]</a>

Myron Ebell's interview in England on BBC radio Today program on the morning after the US re-election of George W. Bush probably led to the biggest response of any media interview. In it, he asserted that global warming was a hoax perpetrated by the EU and the rest of the world to harm America's economy. He justified the allegation with a quote from European Commissioner <a title="Margot Wallström" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margot_Wallstr%C3%B6m">Margot Wallström</a> in her response to Bush's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-4">[5]</a> Ebell also called the UK's Chief Scientist <a title="David King (scientist)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_King_%28scientist%29">David King</a> "an alarmist with ridiculous views who knows nothing about climate change", and then added that since all scientists in Europe and in other countries outside the USA were funded by governments, none of them could be seen as independent.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-5">[6]</a>

As well as the drawing criticism from many corners, 66 <a title="Member of Parliament" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_Parliament">MPs</a> signed an <a title="Early Day Motion" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Day_Motion">Early Day Motion</a> deploring "in the strongest possible terms [his] unfounded and insulting criticism of Sir David King..."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-6">[7]</a> King himself has accused Ebell of posing as an adviser to President Bush, and of appearing at talks solely to ask "a question that wasn't ever really a question," accusing King of bias and of ignoring the work of other scientists.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-7">[8]</a>

In a live interview on the same program on 19 May 2005, <a title="George Monbiot" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot">George Monbiot</a> challenged him to a £5000 bet that the global average temperature over the next ten years would be higher than the global average temperature of the past ten years, but he declined, saying, "I have four children to put through university. I don't take risks."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-8">[9]</a>

A year later on 20 September 2006 he appeared on the BBC TV Newsnight program and described how the <a title="Competitive Enterprise Institute" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a> worked: "We develop our policies, and then we try to find funding for them. Some we find some funding, other's we find very little."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-9">[10]</a>

In this same program, Ebell admits to having no scientific training<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-10">[11]</a>.

Ebell has been part of the delegation of observers from the <a title="Competitive Enterprise Institute" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a> to the annual <a title="United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change">Congress of Parties</a> negotiating the <a title="Kyoto Protocol" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol">Kyoto Protocol</a>.

<h3>[<a title="Edit section: Writings" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell&action=edit&section=4">edit</a>] Writings</h3>

Ebell's support work within the <a title="Competitive Enterprise Institute" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a> is not known. He has written various published op-ed pieces for newspapers, magazines and webpages. In a piece in <a class="mw-redirect" title="Forbes Magazine" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_Magazine">Forbes Magazine</a> December 2006 he wrote:

<table class="cquote" style=" width: auto; margin: auto; border-collapse: collapse; border-style: none; background-color: transparent;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding: 10px; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); text-align: left; font-weight: bold;" width="20" valign="top">“</td><td style=" padding: 4px 10px;" valign="top">[R]ising sea levels, if they happen, would be bad for a lot of people. But a warming trend would be good for other people. More people die from blizzards and cold spells than from heat waves. Increased death rates usually persist for weeks after the unusually cold temperatures have passed, which suggests that the cold is killing people who would otherwise live into another season at least... [M]odest climatic improvement would be to have fewer and less severe big winter storms... This promising scenario of milder winters... comes with a catch, however... Given our obvious preference for living in warmer climates as long as we have air-conditioning, I doubt that we're going to go on the energy diet that the global warming doomsters urge us to undertake. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-forbesart-1">[2]</a></td><td style="padding: 10px; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); text-align: right; font-weight: bold;" width="20" valign="bottom">”</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h3>Litigation</h3>

In 2000, Ebell was a plaintiff, along with several members of Congress, including Sen. <a class="mw-redirect" title="James Inhofe" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Inhofe">James Inhofe</a> (R, OK), who sued the <a title="National Science and Technology Council" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_and_Technology_Council">National Science and Technology Council</a>, President <a title="Bill Clinton" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton">Bill Clinton</a>, and the director of the White House <a title="Office of Science and Technology Policy" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Science_and_Technology_Policy">Office of Science and Technology Policy</a>. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs asserted that the <a title="National Assessment on Climate Change" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assessment_on_Climate_Change">National Assessment on Climate Change</a> report—which details likely state-by-state consequences of <a class="mw-redirect" title="Anthropogenic climate change" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic_climate_change">anthropogenic climate change</a>—violated several federal open-meeting, appropriations and research statutes.

In June 2002 he wrote a memo to <a title="Philip Cooney" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Cooney">Philip Cooney</a>, which <a title="Greenpeace" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace">Greenpeace</a> later obtained,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-11">[12]</a> outlining their strategy for dealing with what Ebell saw as problems caused by the Climate Action Report 2002,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-12">[13]</a> which the US government had submitted to the <a class="mw-redirect" title="UN" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN">UN</a>. The crucial paragraph of this memo reads:

<table class="cquote" style=" width: auto; margin: auto; border-collapse: collapse; border-style: none; background-color: transparent;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding: 10px; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); text-align: left; font-weight: bold;" width="20" valign="top">“</td><td style=" padding: 4px 10px;" valign="top">As I said, we made the decision this morning to do as much as we could to deflect criticism by blaming the EPA for freelancing. It seems to me that the folks at the EPA are the obvious fall guys, and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high up as possible. I have done several interviews and have stressed that the president needs to get everyone rowing in the same direction. Perhaps tomorrow we will call for [Christine Todd Whitman] to be fired. I know that that doesn't sound like much help, but it seems to me that our only leverage to push you in the right direction is to drive a wedge between the President and those in the Administration who think they are serving the president's best interests by publishing this rubbish.

</td><td style="padding: 10px; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); text-align: right; font-weight: bold;" width="20" valign="bottom">”</td></tr></tbody></table>

When two state attorney generals obtained this email they wrote to <a title="John Ashcroft" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft">John Ashcroft</a>, the US attorney general:

It appears that certain White House officials conspired with an anti-environmental special interest group to cause the lawsuit to be filed against the federal government.

The idea that the Bush Administration may have invited a lawsuit from a special interest group in order to undermine the federal government's own work under an international treaty is very troubling.

We believe an investigation is necessary to determine whether the idea of this lawsuit came from the White House itself, and if so, whether it represents improper conduct by public officials.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-13">[14]</a>

</td><td style="padding: 10px; color: rgb(178, 183, 242); text-align: right; font-weight: bold;" width="20" valign="bottom">”</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>[<a title="Edit section: Other writings" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell&action=edit&section=6">edit</a>] Other writings</h2>

Myron Ebell has written a number of articles for a <a title="Human Events" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Events">Human Events</a>, a national conservative weekly since 2003 on issues of oil drilling and of the fight for the re-election of the republican representative <a title="Richard Pombo" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pombo">Richard Pombo</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-14">[15]</a>. For these articles, his list of credentials excludes his work for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is often described in the news as a "non-profit, non-partisan public policy group."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-15">[16]</a>

He has been a harsh critic of the Environmental Protection Agency, saying that it unfairly infringes on land owner's property rights, as well as going against the protection of rare species by encouraging land-owners to make their property uninhabitable for such species to escape regulation.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-16">[17]</a>

<h2>[<a title="Edit section: Previous work" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell&action=edit&section=7">edit</a>] Previous work</h2>

Myron Ebell was an early staff member of <a title="Malcolm Wallop" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Wallop">Senator Malcolm Wallop's</a> <a class="new" title="Frontiers of Freedom Institute (page does not exist)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom_Institute&action=edit&redlink=1">Frontiers of Freedom Institute</a> at least between 1996<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-17">[18]</a> and 1999 when he took up his post at the CEI.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_note-ucs-18">[19]</a>

<h2>[<a title="Edit section: External links" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell&action=edit&section=8">edit</a>] External links</h2>

<ul>

<li><a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://globalwarming.org">globalwarming.org</a></li>

<li><a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://myron-ebell.blogspot.com/">Myron Ebell Climate</a> - a blog tracking everything Myron Ebell does and says</li>

<li><a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=myron_ebell_1">Myron Ebell</a> Timeline at History Commons</li>

<li><a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://cei.org/people/myron-ebell">Official CEI bio</a></li>

<li><a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cei.org/dyn/pubs_by_author.cfm/pubs_by_author.cfm?expert=125">List of publications</a></li>

<li><a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html">'Some Like It Hot' Article</a></li>

<li>Video clips of key moments on the last session of the Climate Change Conference in Bali, December 2007 and interviews with <a title="Hilary Benn" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Benn">Hilary Benn</a> and Myron Ebell on Channel4 News: <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/bali+a+deal+of+sorts/1189647">"Bali: a deal of sorts"</a>.</li>

</ul>

<h2>[<a title="Edit section: References" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell&action=edit&section=9">edit</a>] References</h2>

<li id="cite_note-ceibio-0">^ <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-ceibio_0-0">a</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-ceibio_0-1">b</a> <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://cei.org/people/myron-ebell">http://cei.org/people/myron-ebell</a></li>

<li id="cite_note-forbesart-1">^ <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-forbesart_1-0">a</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-forbesart_1-1">b</a> Myron Ebell (25 December 2006). <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1225/038.html?requestid=2170">"Love Global Warming"</a>. Forbes.com. <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1225/038.html?requestid=2170">http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1225/038.html?_requestid=2170</a>. Retrieved 2006-12-08.<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Love+Global+Warming&rft.atitle=&rft.aulast=Myron+Ebell&rft.au=Myron+Ebell&rft.date=25+December+2006&rft.pub=Forbes.com&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fforbes%2F2006%2F1225%2F038.html%3F_requestid%3D2170&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Myron_Ebell"> </li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-2">^</a> Myron Ebell (4 August 2004). <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cei.org/gencon/014,04155.cfm">"Vol. VIII, No 16 - CCSP to Look at Satellite/Surface Temperature Disparity"</a>. CEI. <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cei.org/gencon/014,04155.cfm">http://www.cei.org/gencon/014,04155.cfm</a>. Retrieved 2006-11-20.<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Vol.+VIII%2C+No+16+-+CCSP+to+Look+at+Satellite%2FSurface+Temperature+Disparity&rft.atitle=&rft.aulast=Myron+Ebell&rft.au=Myron+Ebell&rft.date=4+August+2004&rft.pub=CEI&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cei.org%2Fgencon%2F014%2C04155.cfm&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Myron_Ebell"> </li>

<li id="cite_note-3"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-3">^</a> <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://myron-ebell.blogspot.com/2006/03/fairness-and-accuracy-in-myron.html">"Fairness and accuracy in Myron"</a>. The Myron Ebell Climate. 23 March 2006. <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://myron-ebell.blogspot.com/2006/03/fairness-and-accuracy-in-myron.html">http://myron-ebell.blogspot.com/2006/03/fairness-and-accuracy-in-myron.html</a>.<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Fairness+and+accuracy+in+Myron&rft.atitle=&rft.date=23+March+2006&rft.pub=The+Myron+Ebell+Climate&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fmyron-ebell.blogspot.com%2F2006%2F03%2Ffairness-and-accuracy-in-myron.html&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Myron_Ebell"> </li>

<li id="cite_note-4"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-4">^</a> Stephen Castle (19 March 2001). <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article248106.ece">"EU sends strong warning to Bushover greenhouse gas emisssions"</a>. The Independent. <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article248106.ece">http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article248106.ece</a>. Retrieved 2006-11-20.<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=EU+sends+strong+warning+to+Bushover+greenhouse+gas+emisssions&rft.atitle=&rft.aulast=Stephen+Castle&rft.au=Stephen+Castle&rft.date=19+March+2001&rft.pub=The+Independent&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.independent.co.uk%2Feurope%2Farticle248106.ece&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Myron_Ebell"> </li>

<li id="cite_note-5"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-5">^</a> <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/international/climate_20041104.shtml">"With the Queen in Germany worrying about climate change...? (includes listener feedback)"</a> (Realaudio). BBC. 4 November 2004. <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/international/climate_20041104.shtml">http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/international/climate_20041104.shtml</a>. Retrieved 2006-11-20.<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=With+the+Queen+in+Germany+worrying+about+climate+change...%3F+%28includes+listener+feedback%29&rft.atitle=&rft.date=4+November+2004&rft.pub=BBC&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fradio4%2Ftoday%2Freports%2Finternational%2Fclimate_20041104.shtml&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Myron_Ebell"> </li>

<li id="cite_note-6"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-6">^</a> <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmedm/41117e01.htm">"1881 US Government and climate change"</a>. Hansard. 17 November 2004. <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmedm/41117e01.htm">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmedm/41117e01.htm</a>.<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=1881+US+Government+and+climate+change&rft.atitle=&rft.date=17+November+2004&rft.pub=Hansard&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.publications.parliament.uk%2Fpa%2Fcm%2Fcmedm%2F41117e01.htm&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Myron_Ebell"> </li>

<li id="cite_note-7"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-7">^</a> <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2758663.htm">"The Science Show with Robyn Williams: Sabotage and climate change"</a>. 20 October 2009. <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2758663.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2758663.htm</a>.<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=The+Science+Show+with+Robyn+Williams%3A+Sabotage+and+climate+change&rft.atitle=&rft.date=20+October++2009&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Frn%2Fscienceshow%2Fstories%2F2009%2F2758663.htm&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Myron_Ebell"> </li>

<li id="cite_note-8"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-8">^</a> <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_globalwarming_20050519.ram">"Has alarmism really replaced science in the global warming debate?"</a> (realaudio). BBC. 19 May 2005. <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_globalwarming_20050519.ram">http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_globalwarming_20050519.ram</a>. Retrieved 2006-11-20.<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Has+alarmism+really+replaced+science+in+the+global+warming+debate%3F&rft.atitle=&rft.date=19+May+2005&rft.pub=BBC&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fradio4%2Ftoday%2Flistenagain%2Fram%2Ftoday3_globalwarming_20050519.ram&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Myron_Ebell"> </li>

<li id="cite_note-9"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-9">^</a> <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://myron-ebell.blogspot.com/2006/09/another-proper-interview-ten-years.html">"Another proper interview ten years late"</a>. The Myron Ebell Climate. 21 September 2006. <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://myron-ebell.blogspot.com/2006/09/another-proper-interview-ten-years.html">http://myron-ebell.blogspot.com/2006/09/another-proper-interview-ten-years.html</a>. Retrieved 2006-11-20.<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Another+proper+interview+ten+years+late&rft.atitle=&rft.date=21+September+2006&rft.pub=The+Myron+Ebell+Climate&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fmyron-ebell.blogspot.com%2F2006%2F09%2Fanother-proper-interview-ten-years.html&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Myron_Ebell"> </li>

<li id="cite_note-10"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-10">^</a> <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyKUblhXJw8">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyKUblhXJw8</a></li>

<li id="cite_note-11"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-11">^</a> <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/investigation-of-exxon-front-g">"Greenpeace obtains smoking-gun memo: White House/Exxon link"</a>. Greenpeace. 9 September 2003. <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/investigation-of-exxon-front-g">http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/investigation-of-exxon-front-g</a>. Retrieved 2006-11-20.<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Greenpeace+obtains+smoking-gun+memo%3A+White+House%2FExxon+link&rft.atitle=&rft.date=9+September+2003&rft.pub=Greenpeace&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.greenpeace.org%2Finternational%2Fnews%2Finvestigation-of-exxon-front-g&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Myron_Ebell"> </li>

<li id="cite_note-12"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-12">^</a> <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/thirdnatcom/default.htm">"Climate Action Report 2002"</a>. May 2002. <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/thirdnatcom/default.htm">http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/thirdnatcom/default.htm</a>. Retrieved 2006-11-20.<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Climate+Action+Report+2002&rft.atitle=&rft.date=May+2002&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usgcrp.gov%2Fusgcrp%2FLibrary%2Fthirdnatcom%2Fdefault.htm&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Myron_Ebell"> </li>

<li id="cite_note-13"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-13">^</a> Maine.gov (11 August 2003). Press release. <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.maine.gov/ag/press_release_pop_up.php?press_id=167">http://www.maine.gov/ag/press_release_pop_up.php?press_id=167</a>. Retrieved 2007-01-11.<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=&rft.aulast=Maine.gov&rft.au=Maine.gov&rft.date=11+August+2003&rft.series=Press+release&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maine.gov%2Fag%2Fpress_release_pop_up.php%3Fpress_id%3D167&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Myron_Ebell"> </li>

<li id="cite_note-14"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-14">^</a> Myron Ebell (2 November 2006). <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17832">"Environmentalists Attack Richard Pombo"</a>. Human Events. <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17832">http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17832</a>. Retrieved 2006-11-20.<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Environmentalists+Attack+Richard+Pombo&rft.atitle=&rft.aulast=Myron+Ebell&rft.au=Myron+Ebell&rft.date=2+November+2006&rft.pub=Human+Events&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.humanevents.com%2Farticle.php%3Fid%3D17832&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Myron_Ebell"> </li>

<li id="cite_note-15"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-15">^</a> Yahoo. <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061108/dcw043.html?.v=73">"Green Republicans Lead GOP Losses"</a>. Press release. <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061108/dcw043.html?.v=73">http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061108/dcw043.html?.v=73</a>. Retrieved 2006-11-20.<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Green+Republicans+Lead+GOP+Losses&rft.atitle=&rft.aulast=Yahoo&rft.au=Yahoo&rft.series=Press+release&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fbiz.yahoo.com%2Fprnews%2F061108%2Fdcw043.html%3F.v%3D73&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Myron_Ebell"> </li>

<li id="cite_note-16"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-16">^</a> Myron Ebell (April 2005). <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cei.org/pdf/4530.pdf">"An Update on Endangered Species Act Reform"</a> (PDF). American Legislative Exchange Council. <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cei.org/pdf/4530.pdf">http://www.cei.org/pdf/4530.pdf</a>. Retrieved 2007-01-15.<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=An+Update+on+Endangered+Species+Act+Reform&rft.atitle=&rft.aulast=Myron+Ebell&rft.au=Myron+Ebell&rft.date=April+2005&rft.pub=American+Legislative+Exchange+Council&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cei.org%2Fpdf%2F4530.pdf&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Myron_Ebell"> </li>

<li id="cite_note-17"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-17">^</a> <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/scoop139.htm">"Scoop issue 139"</a>. The National Center for Public Policy Research. 10 August 1996. <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/scoop139.htm">http://www.nationalcenter.org/scoop139.htm</a>. Retrieved 2007-01-11.<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Scoop+issue+139&rft.atitle=&rft.date=10+August+1996&rft.pub=The+National+Center+for+Public+Policy+Research&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalcenter.org%2Fscoop139.htm&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Myron_Ebell"> </li>

<li id="cite_note-ucs-18"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell#cite_ref-ucs_18-0">^</a> <a class="external text" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html">"Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science"</a>. <a title="Union of Concerned Scientists" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>. 3 January 2007. <a class="external free" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html">http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html</a>. Retrieved 2007-01-11.<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Scientists%27+Report+Documents+ExxonMobil%E2%80%99s+Tobacco-like+Disinformation+Campaign+on+Global+Warming+Science&rft.atitle=&rft.date=3+January+2007&rft.pub=%5B%5BUnion+of+Concerned+Scientists%5D%5D&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ucsusa.org%2Fnews%2Fpress_release%2FExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Myron_Ebell"> </li>

</ol>

<div class="printfooter">Retrieved from "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell</a>"</div>

<div id="mw-normal-catlinks"><a title="Special:Categories" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Categories">Categories</a>: <a title="Category:Human Events people" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_Events_people">Human Events people</a> | <a title="Category:Living people" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Living_people">Living people</a> | <a title="Category:Colorado College alumni" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Colorado_College_alumni">Colorado College alumni</a> | <a title="Category:Alumni of the London School of Economics" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Alumni_of_the_London_School_of_Economics">Alumni of the London School of Economics</a> | <a title="Category:People from Baker County, Oregon" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_from_Baker_County,_Oregon">People from Baker County, Oregon</a> | <a title="Category:Environmental skepticism" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Environmental_skepticism">Environmental skepticism</a></div>

<div class="mw-hidden-cats-hidden" id="mw-hidden-catlinks">Hidden categories: <a title="Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing from December 2008" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_needing_style_editing_from_December_2008">Wikipedia articles needing style editing from December 2008</a> | <a title="Category:All articles needing style editing" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_needing_style_editing">All articles needing style editing</a> | <a title="Category:Articles needing cleanup from December 2008" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_needing_cleanup_from_December_2008">Articles needing cleanup from December 2008</a> | <a title="Category:All pages needing cleanup" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_pages_needing_cleanup">All pages needin</a></div>

</div>

<h1 class="firstHeading" id="firstHeading">Cooler Heads Coalition</h1>

<h3 id="siteSub">From SourceWatch</h3>

<div id="jump-to-nav">Jump to: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cooler_Heads_Coalition#column-one">navigation</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cooler_Heads_Coalition#searchInput">search</a></div>

</div>

Cooler Heads Coalition and its website, <a class="external text" title="http://www.globalwarming.org/index.php" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.globalwarming.org/index.php">globalwarming.org</a>, were revived by <a title="Consumer Alert" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Consumer_Alert">Consumer Alert</a>'s <a title="National Consumer Coalition" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Consumer_Coalition">National Consumer Coalition</a> in April 2004. The website and group were formed in May 6, 1997, "to dispel the myths of <a title="Global warming" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming">global warming</a> by exposing flawed economic, scientific and risk analysis." <a title="Consumer Alert" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Consumer_Alert">Consumer Alert</a> and <a title="National Consumer Coalition" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Consumer_Coalition">National Consumer Coalition</a> are industry friendly groups that oppose regulations on industry and advocate "<a class="mw-redirect" title="Free market" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Free_market">free market</a>" consumer solutions.

According to its relaunch press release, "The new web site contains a searchable archive of the Cooler Heads Newsletter, dating back to 1996, and offers users the chance to subscribe to the newsletter. This bi-weekly publication analyzes climate change news and events through scientific, economic and political perspectives." <a class="external autonumber" title="http://www.boston.com/dailynews/096/wash/Global_Warming_Web_Site_OfferP.shtml" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.boston.com/dailynews/096/wash/Global_Warming_Web_Site_OfferP.shtml">[1]</a>

Its website states: "The risks of global warming are speculative; the risks of global warming policies are all too real." <a class="external autonumber" title="http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=562" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=562">[2]</a>

Orginally the group was closely tied to the <a title="Competitive Enterprise Institute" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a>, and still features many of its industry-friendly analyses of ecological issues. Former CEI director <a title="Marlo Lewis" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marlo_Lewis">Marlo Lewis</a> chaired the Cooler Heads Coaltion. <a title="Myron Ebell" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Myron_Ebell">Myron Ebell</a>, CEI's Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy, directed it. In March 2001, the nonprofit <a class="new" title="Clean Air Trust (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Air_Trust&action=edit&redlink=1">Clean Air Trust</a> named Ebell its "clean air villain of the month," citing his "ferocious lobbying charge to persuade President Bush to reverse his campaign pledge to control electric utility emissions of carbon dioxide."

<h2>Members</h2>

<ul>

<li><a title="60 Plus Association" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=60_Plus_Association">60 Plus Association</a></li>

<li><a title="Alexis de Tocqueville Institution" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alexis_de_Tocqueville_Institution">Alexis de Tocqueville Institution</a></li>

<li><a title="American Conservative Union" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Conservative_Union">American Conservative Union</a></li>

<li><a class="new" title="American Highway Users Alliance (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Highway_Users_Alliance&action=edit&redlink=1">American Highway Users Alliance</a></li>

<li><a title="American Legislative Exchange Council" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Legislative_Exchange_Council">American Legislative Exchange Council</a></li>

<li><a title="American Policy Center" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Policy_Center">American Policy Center</a></li>

<li><a class="new" title="Americans for Sovereignty (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Sovereignty&action=edit&redlink=1">Americans for Sovereignty</a></li>

<li><a class="new" title="Americans for the Preservation of Liberty (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_the_Preservation_of_Liberty&action=edit&redlink=1">Americans for the Preservation of Liberty</a></li>

<li><a title="Americans for Tax Reform" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Tax_Reform">Americans for Tax Reform</a></li>

<li><a class="new" title="Association of Concerned Taxpayers (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Association_of_Concerned_Taxpayers&action=edit&redlink=1">Association of Concerned Taxpayers</a></li>

<li><a title="Center for Science and Public Policy" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Science_and_Public_Policy">Center for Science and Public Policy</a> of <a title="Frontiers of Freedom" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom">Frontiers of Freedom</a></li>

<li><a title="Center for Security Policy" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Security_Policy">Center for Security Policy</a></li>

<li><a title="Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Defense_of_Free_Enterprise">Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise</a></li>

<li><a title="Christian Coalition of America" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christian_Coalition_of_America">Christian Coalition of America</a></li>

<li><a title="Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens%27_Alliance_for_Responsible_Energy">Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy</a> (New Mexico)</li>

<li><a title="Citizens for a Sound Economy" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_for_a_Sound_Economy">Citizens for a Sound Economy</a></li>

<li><a class="new" title="Coalitions for America (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coalitions_for_America&action=edit&redlink=1">Coalitions for America</a></li>

<li><a title="Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow">Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow</a></li>

<li><a title="Competitive Enterprise Institute" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a></li>

<li><a title="Consumer Alert" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Consumer_Alert">Consumer Alert</a></li>

<li><a class="new" title="Council for America (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_America&action=edit&redlink=1">Council for America</a></li>

<li><a title="Defenders of Property Rights" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Defenders_of_Property_Rights">Defenders of Property Rights</a></li>

<li><a class="new" title="English First (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=English_First&action=edit&redlink=1">English First</a></li>

<li><a title="FreedomWorks" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FreedomWorks">FreedomWorks</a></li>

<li><a title="Frontiers of Freedom" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom">Frontiers of Freedom</a></li>

<li><a title="George C. Marshall Institute" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute">George C. Marshall Institute</a></li>

<li><a title="Heritage Foundation" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation">Heritage Foundation</a></li>

<li><a title="Maine Heritage Policy Center" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Maine_Heritage_Policy_Center">Maine Heritage Policy Center</a></li>

<li><a class="new" title="Maryland Taxpayers Association, Inc. (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Maryland_Taxpayers_Association,_Inc.&action=edit&redlink=1">Maryland Taxpayers Association, Inc.</a></li>

<li><a title="National Center for Policy Analysis" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis">National Center for Policy Analysis</a></li>

<li><a title="National Center for Public Policy Research" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Public_Policy_Research">National Center for Public Policy Research</a></li>

<li><a title="National Taxpayers Union" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Taxpayers_Union">National Taxpayers Union</a></li>

<li><a title="Pacific Research Institute" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute">Pacific Research Institute</a></li>

<li><a title="Population Research Institute" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Population_Research_Institute">Population Research Institute</a></li>

<li><a class="new" title="Rhode Island Wiseuse (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rhode_Island_Wiseuse&action=edit&redlink=1">Rhode Island Wise use</a></li>

<li><a title="Rio Grande Foundation" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rio_Grande_Foundation">Rio Grande Foundation</a> (New Mexico)</li>

<li><a class="new" title="Seniors Coalition (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Seniors_Coalition&action=edit&redlink=1">Seniors Coalition</a></li>

<li><a title="Small Business Survival Committee" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Small_Business_Survival_Committee">Small Business Survival Committee</a></li>

<li><a title="The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Coalition">The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition</a></li>

<li><a class="mw-redirect" title="The Independent Institute" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Independent_Institute">The Independent Institute</a></li>

<li><a class="new" title="Tradition, Family, Property, Inc. (page does not exist)" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tradition,Family,Property,_Inc.&action=edit&redlink=1">Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

pooley cw;

sect 5 Ebell

cooler heads coalition, FoF  --> CEI, worked with cooney, singer, milloy 46

API action plan doubt

B2 had to suppress clinton era Nat Asses Clim Impact 47  ebell said policy was to make it vanish cf Pilz Vanity fair CEI filed suit

to do it

Ebell helped cooney muzzle, which got cooney fired --> exxon 2 weeks later  48

ebell such a scam, he got own debunk website in 04

Ebell knows the science is against him, but knows he can win on doubt 123

==

</h2>

<h2>Myron Ebell</h2>

<h3>Myron Ebell and the Competitive Enterprise Institute</h3>

Ebell is the "<a href="http://cei.org/people/myron-ebell">director of energy and global warming policy</a>" for the a DC-based think tank called the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

The CEI is well-known for its public efforts to aggressively counter the scientific evidence for human-induced climate change, including an infamous set of television ads with the <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/05/co2_we_call_it.php">tag line</a> "C02, We Call it Life."

Since 1998, the CEI has received over <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php">$2 million in funding</a> from oil-giant ExxonMobil.

In January 2007, ExxonMobil announced that it would <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/exxon-acknowledges-climate-change">no longer be funding</a> the CEI.[same times as snowe and jay rockefeller)] but still gave $ later?]]

Other organizations that <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=jot72e00&fmt=pdf&ref=results">have contributed</a> to the CEI include tobacco giant Philip Morris, which has provided $370,000 since 1991 to the CEI for assistance in "regulatory issues."

A 1996 Brown and Williamson <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zkk33f00/pdf">memo</a> lists the CEI as a funded organization providing research and developing public policy positions.

Ebell is also listed as the "director" of <a href="http://freedomaction.org/index.php/about-us/about-us">Freedom Action</a>, a "grassroots movement" founded in 2009 by the CEI. Freedom Action believes in "individual rights," "free markets," "and limited governments." Links to three of Ebell's articles appear on the site including <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/02/myron-ebell-al-gore-global-warming-climate-gate-phil-jones/">one</a> that describes Al Gore as "the leader of the forces of darkness." All three of the articles were published by Fox News.

<h3>Myron Ebell and Frontiers of Freedom</h3>

Ebell was previously <a href="http://cei.org/expert/myron-ebell">employed</a> as the policy director for <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom">Frontiers of Freedom</a>. In this role he worked on issues including property rights, the Endangered Species Act, federal-land policies and global warming.[ // wise use?]

According to ExxonSecrets, Frontiers of Freedom has <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35">received</a> over $1,270,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.  Frontiers of Freedom is also supported by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds Tobacco.

<h3>Myron Ebell and the Cooler Heads Coalition</h3>

According to Ebell's bio, he currently serves as the chair of the "Cooler Heads Coalition."

Cooler Heads is a project of the National Consumers Coalition, a coalition of 23 freemarket think tanks, many of them with ties to the oil-industry, including the <a href="http://www.heartland.org/">Heartland Institute</a>, the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Committee_For_A_Constructive_Tomorrow" title="Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow">Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow</a>, the <a href="http://www.pacificresearch.org/">Pacific Research Institute</a> and the <a href="http://www.marshall.org/">George C. Marshall Institute</a>.

According to their website, <a href="http://www.globalwarming.org/about">the mission of Cooler Heads</a> is to "[dispel] the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis.

The Cooler Heads project is headed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

<h3>Myron Ebell on ExxonMobil Funding</h3>

In an October 2006 <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/the-competitive-enterprise-institute-and-all-thats-fit-to-spin">BBC interview, Ebell points out that ExxonMobil </a> would probably not fund the CEI if it changed its stance on global warming.

Transcript:

BBC: Myron Ebell why do you imagine that Exxon gives you money?

Ebbel: You know, I think that the attempt here to claim that only the purest of the pure can engage in the public policy debate...

BBC: Please answer the question Mr. Ebell, why do you imagine they give you money?

Ebell: Because we send them letters asking them to support our general programs which... our general program is simply this: we believe in free markets and we support policies that promote less regulation of people's daily lives.

BBC: And they would presumably not be giving you that money if they felt you for taking a different view on, say for example climate change.

Ebell: I suppose that's right. We develop our policies and then we try to find funding.

<h3>Ebell Censured by British House of Commons</h3>

In 2004 The British House of Comons <a href="http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..%5Cdocs%5Cmooney_some.pdf">censured</a> Ebell "in the strongest possible terms" for his "unfounded and insulting criticism of Sir David King, The Government's Chief Scientist." King has notably argued that "climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today."

<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/myron-ebell">http://www.desmogblog.com/myron-ebell</a>

===

GP

Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy, CEI

Chairman, Cooler Heads Coalition. Former National Policy Director, Frontiers of Freedom. Former Staff, American Land Rights Association.

Ebell was previously the National Policy Director at Frontiers of Freedom, where he worked on a variey of environment-related issues. Prior to his work at FoF he was senior legislative assistant to Rep. John Shadegg and also worked for the American Land Rights Association, and active "wise use" organization based in Washington State.

Under the auspices of the Competitve Enterprise Institute, Ebell spoke at the 2001 Alliance for American "Fly In for Freedom," an annual rally of "wise use" leadership.

"A native of Baker City, Oregon, Mr. Ebell holds a BA from Colorado College and an MSc from the London School of Economics. He also did graduate work at the University of California at San Diego and at Peterhouse, Cambridge University." (from CEI website)

<h3>KEY DEEDS</h3>

3 June, 2002

Ebell collaborated with Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, to cover up the findings of an EPA report on climate change. President Bush's staff insisted on several major alterations to the report.

Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=280#src1">"Bush covers up climate research," The observer, 9/21/03</a>

<h3>KEY EVENTS</h3>

NCPA Earth Day Briefing on Global Warming: 'What Do We Really Know vs. What We Are Told'

<a href="http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=123-04202004">http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=123-04202004</a>

The relationship of Myron Ebell to the event: Speaker

<h3>EVENTS</h3>

Kyoto Through the Back Door? A Debate on the Lieberman – McCain Climate Stewardship Act

<a href="http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev102703a.cfm">http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev102703a.cfm</a>

The relationship of Myron Ebell to the event: Speaker

<h3>ORGANIZATIONS</h3>

<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a>

Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=280#src0">CEI website, 3/04</a>

<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41">Heartland Institute</a>

Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=280#src5">Heartland 2010 Climate Conference Speaker List</a>

<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35">Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation</a>

Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=280#src3">Frontiers of Freedom website 5-06</a>

<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=93">Cooler Heads Coalition</a>

Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=280#src0">CEI website, 3/04</a>

<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=133">American Conservative Union Foundation</a>

Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=280#src2">"Serious about Gas Price" by Myron Ebell in Conservative Battleline</a>

<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41">Heartland Institute</a>

Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=280#src4">Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org</a>

<h3>SOURCES</h3>

<a id="src" name="src"> </a><a id="src0" name="src0"> </a>CEI website, 3/04

<a id="src1" name="src1"> </a>"Bush covers up climate research," The observer, 9/21/03

Subheader: White House officials play down its own scientists' evidence of global warming By Paul Harris

<a id="src2" name="src2"> </a>"Serious about Gas Price" by Myron Ebell in Conservative Battleline

<a href="http://acuf.org/issues/issue59/060507news.asp">http://acuf.org/issues/issue59/060507news.asp</a>

<a id="src3" name="src3"> </a>Frontiers of Freedom website 5-06

<a id="src4" name="src4"> </a>Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org

<a href="http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/">http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/</a>

<a id="src5" name="src5"> </a>Heartland 2010 Climate Conference Speaker List

More than 70 speakers will make keynote presentations or participate in panel discussions at the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change, May 16-18, 2010 in Chicago.

<a href="http://www.heartland.org/events/2010Chicago/speakers.html">http://www.heartland.org/events/2010Chicago/speakers.html</a>

----

Mashey

Ebell, Myron

CEI and CHC, was at FF.

cei.org/people/myron-ebell

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

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Ebell

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=6359&Method=Full&PageCall=

&Title=Vanity%20Fair%27s%20Long%20Look%20at%20Myron%20Ebell%20&Cache=False

Activities: GCSCT, US.CONG, GMI2003, GMI2005, GMI2005a, A.HOCKX, A.Hockey, Heart#1,

Heart#2, HeartExp#1, A.GATE

Organizations: API, FF (early, ~1996), CEI, CHC, FreeWork, Heartland

People: many

He was a key person in promoting McKitrick, Essex&McKitrick, and then McIntyre to Washington, DC.

Wikipedia says:

―In 2000, Ebell was a plaintiff, a long with several members of Congress, including Sen. James Inhofe (R, OK),

who sued the National Science and Technology Council, President Bill Clinton, and the director of the White

House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs asserted that the National

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

121

Assessment on Climate Change report—which details likely state-by-state consequences of anthropogenic climate change—violated several federal open-meeting, appropriations and research statutes

.‖

I don‟t yet have a reference for that.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4693855.stm BBC news, 07/18/05 wrote:

―Myron Ebell, of the Competitiveness Enterprise Institute and a prominent global warming sceptic, told BBC

News: "We've always wanted to get the science on trial", and "we would like to figure out a way to get this

into a court of law", adding "this could work".‖ (emboldening mine)

See A.9.6 sequence of emails, showing relationships with Perhach and likely McGinley (Barton).

---

5.3 2005-2006 Wegman Report: Illusion and later Reality

2005.01.04 Peiser started the year with an attack on Naomi Oreskes‘ 2004 essay in Science about the

consensus among climate scientists. Although long-refuted as totally incompetent and even withdrawn by

Peiser, it is still quoted. Monckton mounted a similar attack in 2007, but using his endocrinologist

Klaus-Martin Schulte, who turned out not to understand climate research very well [MAS2008], but E&E

eventually published it anyway.

2005.01.27 The National Post ran a front-page study featuring M&M, and the MM05 paper to be

published 2 weeks later in the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), a credible ―Letters‖ journa l. As noted

in [DEE2010d], this was well-promoted in Canada and the USA, via National Post and the WSJ.

2005.02.10 In the GMI2005 Roundtable, Inhofe discussed planning to give speeches attacking the ―4

pillars‖, of which ―Mann‘s discredited report‖ was one. He had met M&M in (November) 2003.

Who else was at that Roundtable?

2005.02.12 M&M finally got the ―MM05‖ paper into the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), a credible

―Letters‖ journa l.

2005.02.14 Regalado‘s unusual article [REG2005] appeared front page left-hand column of the WSJ, a

precious spot, not usually occupied by science stories, especially like this.

2005.02.18 A WSJ Editorial appeared: "Hockey Stick on Ice: Politicizing the science of global warming"

Was this all coincidence? Had GMI and its allies ever proved to have good access to the WSJ?

Was it more valuable to have an article in the GRL, or on the front page of the WSJ?

2005.05.11 At GMI2005a Roundtable, Kueter and Ebell introduced M&M, whose talk was:

―The Hockey Stick Debate: Lessons in Disclosure and Due Diligence.‖

In the introduction M&M‘s ―expert‖ status at GMI and McKitrick‘s Senior Fellow status at Fraser were

unmentioned. McKitrick emphasized how the hockey stick graph‘s importance to the IPCC TAR, as

though it was the one piece of evidence that mattered. The talk and discussion seem like a blueprint for the

later attacks and to some extent the WR, as the social network issue was even suggested. McIntyre talked

about auditing. McKitrick said their GRL article was peer-reviewed (and in this case, it was), but again,

peer-review does not prove correctness or importance. McIntyre said ―I am not trying to say what did or

didn‘t happen, but as the public , we are entitled to full, true, pla in disc losure.‖ He talked about a (positive)

consensus about Enron and the collapse of that consensus. This meeting is filled with memes to be seen

later. The post-meeting discussion was likely interesting, and follow-on plans are not visible, but disclosure

would indeed be good. But then:

2005.06.08 The Bush Administration‘s Phil Cooney, assisted by Ebell not long before, was exposed by

Andrew Revkin in a New York Times article, as having edited science reports to change their meanings,

generating serious negative publicity. He resigned days later, to join ExxonMobil. As context, the 2005

Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (called ―McLieberman‖ by Ebell in A.9.7) was soon to be voted

upon: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Stewardship_Acts

At this point I can only speculate in connecting dots:

Did Perhach CEQ (in same group as Cooney) ask Ebell for help? Did Ebell have an idea? Did someone else

come up with an idea to combat the bad publicity?

The {GMI, CEI, Singer, Inhofe} grouping had cooperated for years, and specifically on M&M

development, but the effort seemed to shift to Barton/Whitfield . Had Inhofe had been too outspoken

about climate change to be credible? We only know names of a few attendees at the various meetings.

Had any of Barton‟s staff attended any of them? Would email logs of 05/11/05-06/24/05 be interesting?

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

2005.06.21 CHC/FreeWork (including Ebell and Fred.Smith) sent letter to Senate. See CHC.

2005.06.23 Barton/Whitfield signed letters to 5 recipients, faxed that day or the next. Barton staffer

Peter Spencer (P.Spencer hereafter) was labeled as the contact, and turned out to be a central participant,

although that did not become evident until 2010.

2005.06.24 McGinley created 5 PDF files from 4:11PM to 4:15PM, and presumably placed them on the

House website about that time or a little later (A.9.6). But Perhach received a combined copy from Ebell

around 5:47PM, about 90 minutes later, impressive work for late Friday afternoon, unless Ebell had gotten

text files even earlier. The email‘s blind copy (BCC) format strongly hints that it was sent to other people

as well. This was efficient electronic execution, especially compared to faxing letters to people who might

well be away on travel.

How did Ebell know? Why were the letters in Ebell’s hands before recipients were guaranteed to have

seen them? Does this sound like a legitimate request, or a PR tactic to put these letters in “friendly” hands

before the recipients could possibly take action on them?

In hunting for this email, I encountered a few others, excerpted in A.9. Several showed Ebell’s

relationships with Cooney and Perhach. Others touted the McKitrick and Essex talk. Ebell used BCC:

but Sills and Gorman exposed long recipient lists. They included an interesting mix of Senate and House

staffers, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, Singer, Ferguson, and at least some lobbyists. Every new

connection generated more, and I did not have time to chase them.

Would any email logs be of interest? There might be a tight social network there, and one might wonder if

any of these people knew anything about the Barton/Whitfield effort. At least some of the email senders

clearly liked to inform others of relatively minor events. Is it plausible that Ebell considered the

Barton/Whitfield letter a real coup, and was eager to inform people about it?

The Barton/Whitfield letter cited the 02/14/05 Regalado WSJ article has having raised concerns,

basically by M&M. This is curious in several ways. Did they or their staffers suddenly notice this, 4

months later? Or had Barton had it on his desk immediately? Inhofe had been on an anti-hockey-stick

campaign no later than the 02/10/05 meeting. Would Barton not have known about that, given that he and

Inhofe share petroleum interests and funding, as well as chairing related House and Senate committees?

How often do they talk?

Conjecture: this seems like classic meme-laundering, in which people used well-established WSJ contacts

to promote the M&M work they had cultivated since 2001, thus allowing Barton/Whitfield to later point at

WSJ, rather than a relatively obscure GRL paper.

The scientific community pushed back, and for brevity I omit all the back-and-forth. Of course, for some

(like Singer) being able to say ―Federal Investigation‖ is worth much. But [DEE2010e] reminds us:

2005.07.15 NAS President Ralph Ciccerone wrote Barton:

www.geo.umass.edu/climate/cicerone-letter.pdf

―A Congressional investigation, based on the authority of the House Commerce Committee is probably not the

best way to resolve a scientific issue, and a focus on individual scientists can be intimidating.‖

―…National Academy of Sciences would be willing to create an independent expert panel (according to our

standard rigorous study process) to assess the state of scientific knowledge in this area, or perhaps one of the

professional scientific societies could take on this task for you.‖

This of course is a standard way for

vanity fair
may 2007
A Convenient UntruthFor the obligatory “opposing view” on climate change, the media often turn to Myron Ebell, policy analyst, sound-bite artist, and oil-industry mouthpiece. While mainstream experts see global warming as a major crisis, the hotter it gets, the better Ebell likes itAl Gore says global-warming skeptics are a group diminishing almost as rapidly as the mountain glaciers.Myron Ebell begs to differ.Hurricanes, heat waves, flooding, and droughts—sure, they've stirred some fears. And some corporate allies that used to mock global warming—such as Detroit's Big Three automakers and oil giant Texaco—have, like the glaciers, melted away from the fight. But, for the hardest of the hard core, these are glorious days.Like holdouts in the Alamo, the last of the skeptics plug away at the thousands of mainstream scientists now arrayed against them. They take potshots at the scores of studies that say global warming is here, aiming for small incongruities. And they bridle when asked if they take money, as nearly all do, from ExxonMobil.Many of the skeptics are curmudgeons: old, bald, and bitter. But not Myron Ebell. Tall, slim, and youthful at 53, his blond hair swept back from a handsome face set off by serious glasses, Ebell is one of that rare breed, an elegant nerd. On television, facing interrogation by moderators who clearly feel he should be tarred and feathered for his views, he stays cool and fires back with withering zingers. In the recent surprise hit movie Thank You for Smoking, based on Christopher Buckley's novel, actor Aaron Eckhardt played a tobacco lobbyist who jokes about being a merchant of death and gleefully outdebates all comers. Ebell could easily star in the sequel, Thank You for Warming.Ebell is a public-policy wonk—not, he hastens to clarify, a lobbyist for the energy industry, as many of his fellow skeptics are, or a scientist whose research is underwritten by the energy industry, or a politician who takes contributions from the energy industry. He lives in a suburb of Washington, D.C., where he and his wife are raising four children, ranging in age from an 11-year-old son to a 21-year-old daughter, all of whom, Ebell says proudly, take a skeptical view of global warming. He goes to work at a think tank on Connecticut Avenue called the Competitive Enterprise Institute (C.E.I.), where his office is modest, but not his influence.Every day, journalists around the world call C.E.I. for its take on the latest global-warming studies, and Ebell, or one of his colleagues who also deal with the press—Marlo Lewis, Iain Murray, and Christopher Horner—happily obliges. The journalists like to air all views—"on the one hand, on the other"—so they plug in Ebell's latest retorts, giving them equal weight with new scientific findings. Gore is right in one sense: almost no scientist doubts that global warming is here, that man-made greenhouse gases are to blame, or that if we don't cut back on those gases fairly soon we'll be in a heap of trouble. But as the "other hand" in all those news stories, Ebell and his quotable cohorts sustain the impression that a scientific debate is still raging. The more studies that confirm global warming, the more ink Ebell gets. Journalist Ross Gelbspan, a longtime skeptic-tracker, says that's how the skeptics operate. With those doubts neatly planted in the press, the public shrugs, politicians push the problem off to another day, and ExxonMobil parries new fossil-fuel regulations, earning more windfall profits in exchange for a pittance to the skeptics and their work.Like its ideological soulmates, C.E.I. has taken money—a considerable amount—from ExxonMobil. Ebell says that's irrelevant. "We're not beholden to our donors, because we don't say, 'If you give us this money, we'll do this project,'" he explains, tilting back nonchalantly in a C.E.I. conference-room chair. "I can't even quite tell you who supports us on global warming." In fact, Ebell could go to the ExxonMobil Web site and see that in 2005 the oil giant gave C.E.I. $270,000, a not inconsiderable portion of the institute's $3.7 million budget, and that between 1998 and 2005 ExxonMobil gave it more than $2 million. He could also ask one of his colleagues and learn that C.E.I. gets money from the American Petroleum Institute, various pharmaceutical companies (Dow Chemical, Eli Lilly), and William A. Dunn of Dunn Capital Management. But he says he's never done that. Since its founding, 23 years ago, by free marketer Fred Smith as an all-purpose bullhorn against government regulations, C.E.I. has simply tinkered with issues it chooses—from higher mileage standards in cars (bad) to the Endangered Species Act (worse)—trying to affect public policy and hoping donors come along for the ride.That may be how C.E.I. sees it. To ExxonMobil, though, C.E.I. has been one of the brightest stars in its constellation of climate skeptics. Other oil companies fund global-warming-skeptic think tanks through the American Petroleum Institute, and various coal interests weigh in, too. But, for the skeptics, ExxonMobil is Big Daddy.From 1998 to 2005, ExxonMobil spent a reported $16 million funding climate studies at some three dozen institutes. The recipients range from the well-known right-wing clearinghouse American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research ($240,000 from ExxonMobil in 2005) to the obscure Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow ($90,000 in 2005), bookends to a Who's Who of skeptics. None of these groups has any standing in mainstream climate science. Their fellows and scholars crank out policy papers that purport to disprove the latest findings about global warming and only rarely publish studies in peer-reviewed technical scientific journals. Instead, the institutes publish the papers themselves or get sympathetic newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times to run them as op-ed pieces. From there, the papers are taken up by a handful of lawmakers—such as Oklahoma Republican senator James Inhofe and Texas Republican congressman Joe Barton, who deride global warming as an alarmist hoax—and get disseminated on the Internet like viral advertising. It's an all too effective approach.The stars, as in any constellation, are an eclectic bunch. They include fringe scientists such as David Legates and Patrick Michaels, of the George C. Marshall Institute ($115,000 from ExxonMobil in 2005), a Washington-based public-policy think tank; economists like Kyoto Protocol–basher Margo Thorning, of the American Council for Capital Formation ($360,000 from ExxonMobil in 2005); and historical-climate theorists such as the Battling Idsos—father Sherwood, sons Craig and Keith—of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change ($25,000 from ExxonMobil in 2005), who say high levels of CO2 in the prehistoric era led to lush plant life and better times for all. The skeptics appear on one another's panels, defend one another's work, and give the public the sense that mainstream scientists are nothing more than so many Chicken Littles. The case for global warming has grown all but irrefutable, yet the skeptics have enjoyed enormous influence, for the audience that matters most to them occupies the White House. Eagerly, their papers have been snatched up by the Bush administration as rationales for all manner of public policy, from striking down the Kyoto Protocol to blocking any cap on carbon dioxide emissions.C.E.I. has become the best known of these global-warming skeptics not just because Ebell is as quotable as he is. Like the hero of Thank You for Smoking, he courts notoriety. He first made the news a few years ago when a Bush White House senior official named Phil Cooney was caught watering down language on global warming in a U.S. government report issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. Ebell, as an e-mail later showed, advised the once and future oil-industry flack on how to spin the embarrassment. Not long after, Ebell stirred the wrath of the British Parliament by declaring in a BBC radio interview that the U.K.'s chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, had made a "ridiculous claim" on global warming despite knowing "nothing about climate science." The House of Commons proposed a motion to censure Ebell. (The motion never passed, Ebell says wistfully.) Last year, C.E.I. ran a public-service commercial on television about carbon dioxide so cheeky it verged on parody. "They call it pollution," ran the tagline about CO2. "We call it life." Ebell was delighted at the howls it provoked.There is, however, one key difference between Ebell and his doppelgänger in Chris Buckley's novel. The tobacco lobbyist of the novel and upcoming TV series is a cynic: he knows he's blowing smoke. Ebell actually seems to believe what he's saying. Which is remarkable, really, because every one of his arguments, put to scrutiny by a murderer's row of the country's top climate scientists, seems to fall apart.Like any effective debater, Ebell tends to start by ceding a point or two. It disarms the opposition. "Everyone knows CO2 is a greenhouse gas," he says blithely. "All things being equal, if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, you'll get a little warming."Actually, that's a revision of what Ebell's fellow contrarians believed in the early 1990s. They used to say that all the CO2 and other greenhouse gases put into the air by man since the start of the industrial age had caused no warming at all. They said this because that was what satellite readings suggested if you read them a certain way and if you decided the satellites were right and all temperature readings taken on the surface of the earth were wrong. Unfortunately for the skeptics, it was the satellite readings that turned out to be wrong. So the skeptics retreated to a view that Ebell still holds. "There has been a little bit of warming," as he puts it, "but it's been very modest and well within the range for natural variability, and whether it's caused by human beings or not, it's nothing to worry about."This view, too, needs revision, though Ebell isn't surrendering that ground quite yet. Precisely to test the "range for natural variability," climatologist Michael Mann and colleagues charted temperatures going back 1,000 years. They did this by studying the natural records of climate in tree rings, ice cores from glaciers, and coral reefs. The temperature, they found, made modest zigs and zags until the late 19th century—a range of natural variability just as the skeptics claimed. But once the industrial age got under way there was a dramatic rise in global temperatures not seen in the past 1,000 years, concurrent with CO2 concentrations rising from their pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million to their current level of 380 parts per million. Now the climbing lines of the graph shot up like a hockey stick laid on its side. Hence the hockey-stick debate.Ebell and his fellow skeptics have poured no end of bile on Mann and his hockey stick—because if Mann's findings are true, the skeptics have no case. The graph is global warming proved. The skeptics say the evidence is shaky for the earliest centuries of Mann's 1,000-year period. So the hockey stick, they declare, is wrong.To settle the debate, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed Mann's hockey-stick data and methodology last year, along with similar studies. The N.A.S. concluded that Mann's evidence for the years from 1600 to the present was very solid indeed. It said the evidence for the years from 1000 to 1600 was necessarily less solid—fewer tree rings and ice cores to go by—but, overall, Mann's evidence did suggest that the 20th century was warmer than any of those six centuries, too."Which is exactly what we said in our original report," observes Mann, now a professor at Pennsylvania State University. The headline in Mann's report had noted the "limitations and caveats" of the evidence, given how far back it went. "The principle of caution is what scientists go by," Mann says. Ebell and the skeptics had pounced on those caveats to conclude that Mann didn't know what he was talking about. "It's not surprising coming from C.E.I.," Mann adds. "I've never seen any evidence that they have any interest in being intellectually honest.""The complaint about the hockey stick has been that the people who did the research didn't know what they were doing," Ebell maintains. "The methodology they used was not adequate to properly evaluate the data that they had." (The n.a.s. specifically rejected that charge in their report.)In the documentary-film version of An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore stands beside an elongated hockey stick—a graph that goes back not just 1,000 years but 650,000 years. The story it tells is the same. Ebell says the Gore chart is not just inaccurate but misleading in a profound way because it implies that CO2 levels have never been higher than they are now. "Everybody knows it's been higher than that," Ebell says of CO2 in the past, "just more than 650,000 years ago, which is when Gore started counting."It's a canny point. If earth survived prehistoric periods of higher CO2, when man and industry had nothing to do with it, why are we worrying about CO2 now?"Yeah, CO2 was higher in the early Cretaceous period," Mann explains. "It probably exceeded 1,000 parts per million. And, yes, temperatures were almost certainly higher then, too. But nature produced these changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations—from volcanic activity and plate tectonics that released gases trapped in the solid earth—on timescales of tens of millions of years! Eco-systems and species were thus able to adapt," Mann says. "Now we're talking about dramatic changes in the period of a century or so. There's no evidence that nature knows how to adapt so quickly."Ebell is unfazed by such seemingly authoritative talk. O.K., he says: if CO2 levels have indeed gone up a third in the last hundred years, as Gore's hockey-stick chart indicates, and global temperature is supposed to follow, why haven't we seen a commensurate rise in temperature?"That's pure nonsense," Mann says. "As we increase CO2 levels, we are changing the boundary conditions, if you will, too rapidly for the climate to be in equilibrium while we do this. So the climate is always trying to catch up to what we've done." The correlation between CO2 and temperature, he says, has been studied very well in physics and chemistry. "Our best estimates indicate that the increase in CO2 from pre-industrial levels to the present has already produced roughly 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit of warming in global temperatures."Ebell is ready for that. What if the earth has actually embarked on a natural cooling phase—a new Little Ice Age—and the CO2 we're putting out there is offsetting it? After all, says Ebell, "we just came out of a Little Ice Age in the middle of the 19th century. And the Little Ice Age was a time of great trial for human civilization.""Another specious argument," Mann says. First, he says, the so-called Little Ice Age wasn't a major event in terms of impact on global temperature: "While Europe cooled, the tropical Pacific was in an unusually warm state. So you can't just broad-brush the global temperature changes in this way. Models and paleoclimate data both suggest that the global cooling during the Little Ice Age was modest, much smaller than the global warming of the past century." The skeptics say that natural changes, such as a slight reduction in solar intensity, made the Little Ice Age happen. Ebell's suggestion is that that could be happening again. Mann observes that there's no evidence of this. Even if solar variations have had some modest effect on climate today, he adds, they would be more than offset by greenhouse-gas warming. Given the huge and growing volume of gases mankind is generating, says Mann, such natural factors would be dwarfed.As indeed they are. Every year now, with no discernible slowing from "natural variations" such as solar intensity and volcanic activity, global mean temperatures rise. Twenty-one of the 22 hottest years on record have occurred in the last 25 years. The only reason temperatures rise, agrees virtually every climate scientist not funded by ExxonMobil, is the increasing prevalence of man-made greenhouse gases.As these hot years accumulate, a skeptic of less determination might throw in the towel—after mopping his brow with it—but not Ebell. He says that one of the three official records of those surface temperatures—the one kept by nasa—is "cooked," because the agency's weather stations are often set too close to "urban heat islands," which read disproportionately high, and that other stations fail to cover large rural areas. The other two records show that 2005 wasn't as warm as 1998. That, Ebell says, is more evidence we're at the start of a cooling period.Unfortunately for this novel theory, 2006 has just been declared the hottest year on record in the United States. "The United States is not the world," Ebell says. "It's a very small part of the world."A lot of very strange weather appears to be occurring as a result of those rising temperatures. Global warming, scientists say, evaporates moisture from wet land, leading to more precipitation. It sucks up what little moisture resides in dry land, producing more droughts. As global warming accelerates, they say, the climates of both kinds of terrain will grow more extreme.Ebell says no. "This is crazy," he declares. "Who could possibly believe that? You can't predict regional climate change." He claims that the federally funded U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change proved this. "They had two climate models for the precipitation impact of global warming in the Midwest. One showed the Midwest becoming a desert and the other one showed Kansas becoming as lush as Indiana.""Those studies are dated and irrelevant," says Kevin Trenberth, one of the country's foremost climate experts. Trenberth heads the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (ncar), in Boulder, Colorado. "They were done in about 1995," he says of the studies. "The state of climate modeling was immature.… As many as 23 models since then have superseded them. These models can now simulate the last hundred years quite well, and thus are useful for broadscale predictions of the future."Those models, says Trenberth, prove that the global mean temperature has gone up about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in that time, most of that since the 1970s. "Warmer air holds more water," Trenberth explains. "So in the U.S. the overall precipitation since 1900 has gone up, mostly in the last 35 years, by 7 percent. Heavy rainfall has gone up l4 percent, and the heaviest rainfall—the top 1 percent—has gone up by 20 percent. It rains more, and when it rains, it rains harder than it used to, and that certainly applies to the Midwest." Dry areas of the U.S., mainly the Southwest, do become drier as warm air pulls up what little moisture there is in the soil, Trenberth says, and so one sees more droughts. "There's simply no rational reason to doubt that those trends will not continue if global temperatures rise, as they seem set to do."Mainstream scientists say that, along with a warming atmosphere, our oceans are heating up, too. "I think that's made up," Ebell says. "I understand that the oceans are primarily heated by direct solar radiation. I do not understand how—beyond just the surface—they are heated by the warming up of the atmosphere. It seems to me that the atmosphere would have to warm up significantly above the previous level before that radiation could actually heat up the ocean.""That's the most preposterous bullshit I've ever heard," exclaims Tom Wigley, another senior scientist at ncar and co-author of a new study on ocean warming. "Perhaps that would be the case if the oceans didn't move. But the ocean is continually moving, horizontally and vertically, and continually mixing heat down to the depths. The top 100 meters has warmed about the same amount as the atmosphere—about one and a half degrees Fahrenheit. The deeper ocean warms much more slowly, but each degree increase in atmospheric temperature does propagate down.… In fact, the amount of warming agrees exceptionally well with what computer models say should have happened." Wigley says the models suggest that the rate of ocean warming in the 21st century will probably be four times greater than in the 20th century.Ebell has a phrase for such predictions. Computer models for predicting climate, he says, "don't even pass the laugh test."Wigley is astonished: "Does he think modeling is a hoax? Has he ever tried to talk to people about this?, I wonder. Or is he just having a guess?" Wigley observes that scientists have charted actual weather data from the 20th century, then programmed computer models to see how well the models predict the weather that actually occurred. "There are hundreds of papers," says Wigley, "showing that models do a fantastically good job."Warming oceans already appear to have stirred tropical hurricanes of greater intensity and duration than in the past, though scientists are wary of suggesting that any particular storm—Katrina, for example—is the direct result of warming. What they do say, Wigley observes, is that, if warming trends continue, ocean storms will definitely grow stronger.Ebell has a cheerier forecast. "Everybody involved in this debate who knows anything about storms knows that a warmer world will be a more stable planet with less big storms," he says. "There may be more hurricanes … but most of the big storms that kill a lot of people are in the winter, right? Cold kills a lot more people than warmth."Scientists who do believe the ocean is warming—which is to say, nearly all of them—can already measure the cost to sea life. Researchers at the Sir Alistair Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science, in Plymouth, England, have found that, as a result of warming, the entire eco-system of the North Sea is in a state of "ecological meltdown."Ebell disputes that. "If the oceans are warming, or the acidity is changing, that will benefit some species more than others," he says. "Some will take over, others will die out or move on somewhere else. The oceans are changing all the time."For oceanographers, one worrisome sign lies right offshore: in tropical oceans all over the world, coral reefs are bleaching and dying as the acidity caused by warming, apparently, kills the plankton that sustain them.Ebell is unconcerned. "My impression of corals," he says, "is that they have successfully adapted in the past to warmer temperatures and to cooler temperatures, and there is a good deal of evidence that they can adapt—that they actually changed their composition based on the temperature and the chemistry of the waters surrounding them over time.""He is, of course, right and, of course, wrong," replies Dr. Elliott Norse, president of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute. "Corals and their relatives have lived on earth for hundreds of millions of years. They've been more and less abundant, if you take the long view. On the other hand, there have been cataclysmic changes that have happened five previous times in the earth's history. The last was 65 million years ago when a celestial body the size of Mt. Everest hit the earth and caused the extinction of dinosaurs and many other species. It was not a nice time to be around, as I'm sure Mr. Ebell would have found in the minutes before he died."Actually, warming has already affected countless species on land—or so say experts such as James Hansen, the nasa scientist who first sounded the alarm about global warming, two decades ago. Warming temperatures, he says, are forcing animals to migrate north out of their habitats. As they do, they disrupt the chain of life in their eco-systems, putting themselves and other species at risk. They may also run into man-made barriers that kill them, leading ultimately to their extinction."I've never seen a good study on that," Ebell counters. "What you see are studies that show that animals are living at higher elevations than they used to, or higher latitudes. Like you find robins now all over Canada."Most immediately threatened, says Hansen, are animals of the polar climates: they have nowhere colder to go. As their world warms, the icebergs on which many of them live are melting, dooming them to drown. "Polar bears, in effect, will be pushed off the planet," Hansen has written."James Hansen was not trained as a climate scientist," Ebell says. "He was trained as an astronomer. He's a physicist. His dissertation was on the atmosphere of Venus, and he has applied what he's learned in physics and in astronomy to become a climate scientist, but you know from him talking about species' going north, he knows nothing about biology. Have you seen Legates's study?"David Legates is another hard-core skeptic, director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research, who recently issued a paper declaring that only 2 of the world's 20 polar-bear populations are decreasing. Most of the others are stable; two are growing. What Ebell neglects to mention is that Legates's paper was published by another think tank, the National Center for Policy Analysis—whose global- warming-denial research was partially funded in 2005 with a $75,000 contribution from ExxonMobil—not in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.The polar-bear study that was peer-reviewed—predicting that polar bears are moving toward extinction—was the work of more than 300 scientists and experts around the world in a consortium called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Even the U.S. Department of the Interior has now proposed that polar bears be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act because polar sea ice is melting—an extraordinary admission for an administration philosophically aligned with the skeptics. But Ebell is unwilling to concede that polar bears are in any trouble at all.The assessment team also concluded that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world—with some parts of Alaska warming as much as 10 times as fast. As a consequence, over the past 30 years, areas of ocean that are at least 15 percent ice have decreased annually by nearly 390,000 square miles, an area larger than Norway, Sweden, and Denmark combined. "We're facing unprecedented changes," says Dr. Robert Corell, senior policy fellow at the American Meteorological Society, who chaired the study."Corell is not a climate scientist," Ebell says. "He's not an Arctic expert. He's not a glaciologist. He's not any of those things. He is an oceanographer and an engineer."The whole Arctic assessment, he declares, is cooked data. "If you look at the temperature graph … they show a strong warming trend in the last 34 years.… They cut the data off at 1950. There's a well-known Arctic temperature record that goes back to the early years of the 20th century. The reason they cut it off at 1950 is it was warmer in the Arctic in the 30s and 40s than it is today." The truth, Ebell says, is that "the Arctic warms and cools according to a period of natural cycles of several decades. And we're now in the warm phase; in the 50s and 60s and 70s we were in the cool phase. This is how you cook the data, and this is what these people are all about.""That's baloney," Corell says. "We did go back further; we have historical records that go back 400,000 years. Parts of the Arctic were probably a little warmer in the 1930s than they are today, but the whole Arctic is warmer today certainly than it's been in the last thousand years—and probably a lot longer than that."As for his background, Corell notes that, after studying engineering and oceanography, he made his first trip to the Arctic in 1968 and has been in and out of it ever since, taking sediment cores and writing papers, all while heading up the National Science Foundation's climate-study program. "I have never met Ebell," he adds. "He's never contacted me or sent anyone in the assessment any questions."Corell's team feels that if warming continues at current rates the Arctic polar ice cap will soon start melting completely every summer. Ebell says so what. "The period in which the ice might disappear is a fairly limited one," he says. Besides, he points out, the Arctic polar cap is ice that's floating on water. "So that doesn't have any effect on sea levels at all—just like the ice cubes in your drink, when they melt, they don't change the level."The same can't be said for the ice sheets over much of Greenland and all of Antarctica: they sit on land. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore explains how the melting of either the Greenland ice sheet or the western arm of the Antarctica ice sheet would increase the level of the world's oceans by as much as 20 feet, inundating low-lying coastal areas from the Maldives to Manhattan. Ebell says that all this is exaggerated or plain wrong. The new alarm about Greenland, he points out, was based on a study of three years of melting. "It's melting slightly faster than it was four years ago, and we get worldwide consternation."Though he likes to bash scientists for working outside their degreed fields, Ebell, it turns out, isn't a scientist at all. He majored in philosophy at the University of California in San Diego, then studied political theory at the London School of Economics and history at Cambridge. He was, he readily admits, a misfit growing up in rural Oregon on his father's 2,000-acre cattle ranch: a "pointy-headed intellectual" who "loathed the counterculture." He was a misfit in England, too, he discovered: not smart enough to get a fellowship at Cambridge, as Ebell modestly puts it, and not English enough to make do with the modest pay of an English academic. So he returned—with his Albuquerque-born wife, whom he'd met in England—to the U.S., working a succession of public-policy jobs in Washington, carving out conservative positions on property rights, federal lands, and endangered species. In none of those realms did he have any more than his curiosity and convictions."I'm not claiming to be a climate authority—the way Jim Hansen is, or Robert Corell," says Ebell. "Every interview I do, when I'm asked about scientific issues, I say I'm not a climate scientist. I'm just giving you the informed layman's perspective.… If science is going to be discussed in the public arena, then shouldn't people other than scientists be allowed to participate? Isn't that what a representative democracy is?"With evidence of global warming piling ever higher, even the best of the skeptics has a harder time making his case. So Ebell and his colleagues have hit on a new theme. Maybe warming will occur at more than modest rates in the future, he acknowledges.Some people think that's not so bad."People prefer warmer climates," Ebell declares. "They do better in them. People do better in Phoenix than they do in Buffalo. They feel better, they're happier, they're more productive. They live longer."All predictions of global warming, Ebell observes, suggest that the tropics will stay about the same. The real effects of warming will be in the upper latitudes. "Northern cities like Saskatoon will be more like Calgary, and Bismarck, North Dakota, will be more like Kansas City, and Kansas City will be more like Oklahoma City. Now, is this really bad?"Yes, it is, says Dr. Paul R. Epstein, of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. "It's not just the warming," he says. Or the storms and other weather extremes. Or the stress put on visible creatures of sea and land. "It's the pests and diseases!"Epstein has studied the spread of malarial mosquitoes to ever higher mountain altitudes in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. "In the very places where glaciers are retreating and plant communities are migrating upward and temperatures are warming, mosquitoes are circulating." The pattern is consistent from one continent's mountains to the next. "That," Epstein notes, "creates conditions conducive to disease transmission at high altitudes."Wrong again, says Ebell. "What Paul Epstein publishes is total rubbish," he exclaims. "Temperature is one of the least important factors in the spread of tropical diseases. Malaria didn't used to be called a tropical disease, because it was endemic throughout the world. It's tropical now because it's the rich countries that were able to eradicate it." Actually, that's not true. Malaria was originally called ague or marsh fever because it emanated from warm-weather swamps. Mosquitoes are warm-weather carriers, and the pioneering work done more than a century ago to identify them as carriers, before rich countries had any inkling they were to blame, was done in Algeria, Cuba, and India—all tropical or subtropical climes.Epstein has another example: bark beetles. Not long ago, vigilant forestry had drastically reduced their prevalence in the U.S. Now because of warmer winters, he says, they've spread back north as far as Alaska. Frost used to kill them off, but now they "overwinter" and produce more generations each year as they go. "They kill the trees, laying eggs inside the bark," Epstein explains. "So we see vast stands of dead trees, and more forest fires."Ebell says he grew up with bark beetles on his family's ranch. Their recent spread, he says, is simply due to poor forest management, not global warming. "Epstein is a medical doctor, not a scientist," he says. "He's a mountebank.""What does that even mean?" Epstein says wonderingly. Though the Harvard doctor does know who Ebell is: "He works for that group funded by ExxonMobil, doesn't he?"Every five to seven years now, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (I.P.C.C.), a United Nations–backed consortium of more than 2,500 experts from around the world, issues a voluminous report on global climate—the largest exercise in scientific research ever undertaken. Drafts of the latest report—the fourth—began appearing in February. Its conclusions are devastating. Casting aside the scientific caution of the first three reports, it says global warming is "unequivocal" and largely man-made. It predicts with greater than 90 percent confidence that if carbon dioxide levels rise to double what they were in pre-industrial times, which they'll likely do by the end of the century if fossil-fuel emissions aren't drastically cut, they will push global mean temperatures up between 3.5 and 8 degrees. That would warm the earth to a level not seen in 125,000 years. (That last rise was, of course, a very gradual one, allowing nature to adjust, not a flip-switch jolt in the blink of 350 years.) Already, the warming that's occurred seems likely to increase sea levels 7 to 23 inches by 2100. That's without taking into account the consequences of polar-ice-cap melting, the factor that Al Gore, James Hansen, and others say might cause sea levels to rise by 20 feet or more. The I.P.C.C. scientists say they can't predict the rate of ice-cap melting, and are forbidden, by their United Nations charter, to include speculation. So they just leave that part out. A second part, issued in March, predicts tens of millions of environmental refugees each year from flooding, the rampant spread of tropical diseases (including malaria), and widespread starvation by 2080.Ebell says the I.P.C.C.'s verdicts are highly misleading. Most of those 2,500 experts work on small, specific bits of one of three 1,000-page reports. Their work isn't alarmist. Only the summaries are. "Who writes the summary for policymakers?," Ebell asks. "The member governments that belong to the I.P.C.C., not the scientists who work on the three 1,000-page case reports.""Mr. Ebell doesn't understand how the I.P.C.C. works if he claims that the summaries are only the products of the governments," replies Richard H. Moss, senior climate director at the United Nations Foundation, who's a leading member of the I.P.C.C. as well as a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland. "All lead authors do have input into the summary documents, not just to the underlying chapters or specific portions of the summaries related to their expertise. Almost all concur that the evidence is mounting that we have a serious problem on our hands that we must begin to address."For Ebell, being a contrarian has proved to be a pointy-headed misfit's idea of good fun. Still, with new studies appearing almost weekly confirming global warming, why not come out for doing something—anything—to help slow its onset in the bizarre event that it's as real as thousands of scientists say it is?Ah, says Ebell with the grin of a debater who's saved his best points for last, because of the risk. "It's a risk-risk analysis," he says. "What is the risk of some of the consequences of global warming happening and having to deal with them compared to the risks of putting the world on an energy-rationing diet?"The Kyoto Protocol, the United Nations agreement ratified by, as of February 2007, 170 countries to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions but shunned by President Bush, has proved his point already, Ebell says. Many European nations will miss their 2010 targets for reducing fossil-fuel emissions. They're making huge sacrifices—in industry and capital growth—for tiny or nonexistent energy savings. President Bush was right to avoid it, Ebell says: it would cost the U.S. between $100 billion and $400 billion a year by 2050 to offset global warming by seven-hundredths of a degree Celsius. Not by chance was Kyoto's approach voted down 95–0 by the U.S. Senate in 1997—it is a dead end, Ebell says."Ever since Kyoto was negotiated," Ebell says, "there's no way I could lose. I hate to say that, because it sounds arrogant." But there it is. "It has nothing to do with us. It has to do with the reality. Al Gore and others … said we think that in order to solve this problem we'll have to reduce emissions by 60 to 80 percent by 2050." Meanwhile, Ebell observes, the U.S. Department of Energy and the International Energy Agency have each gauged the world's future energy needs. "Between now and 2030—not 2050—world energy use is going to go up by 60 percent!" (The International Energy Agency predicts the world will be using the same percentage of energy from fossil fuels that is used today, around 80 percent.) "This is a vision coming up against reality," Ebell says. "It's a train wreck, and I know which side will win. Reality will win."As governments fail one by one to curb their greenhouse gases, Ebell suggests, a new generation of leaders will see the Kyoto Protocol for what it is: a loser. "They will want to distance themselves from it because it is a train wreck, and the scientific community will go, 'Oh, well, uh, maybe it wasn't as big a problem as we thought it was!'""Ebell may be proved right about Kyoto," says longtime New York Times environment reporter Andrew Revkin. "And because global warming isn't a catastrophe in the traditional definition of the word, its full impact won't be felt tomorrow, or next year, or perhaps even for decades. That makes it easy for Ebell to target some scientists as alarmists. This can perpetuate a false sense of intellectual deadlock. And that masks what is clearly established—that more carbon dioxide will raise temperatures and seas for centuries to come."The best way to deal with warming, Ebell says, is to do exactly what President Bush is doing: encourage the energy industry to burn more gas, more oil, and more coal. The more energy we burn, the more prosperous the energy industry becomes. The more prosperous it is, the more quickly it replaces its fossil-fuel plants, using new technology that does a better job of trapping greenhouse gases. In 50 years, Ebell says, if global warming has really become the problem alarmists say it will be, the technology to deal with it then will be 50 years better than it is now. So let's wait until then, and tackle it more intelligently, more efficiently—more cheaply—than we can today.To Harvard's Paul Epstein, that's the skeptics' most reprehensible claim. "Not only have the skeptics and the administration been misleading us about the science but about the economic consequences of trying to deal with this problem," he says. "They've maintained this big lie that we're going to lose if we deal with this now. In truth, Detroit is losing heavily because we're not dealing with this now. We're losing by not moving toward green buildings and hybrid cars and co-generation. Companies that are doing this are saving money."As nearly every week brings a new alarm about global warming, Ebell stays proudly resolute—rather like George W. Bush rationalizing each new setback in Iraq. Only, with global warming, even the Bush administration is now embracing the latest I.P.C.C. report, in principle at least, and trying to make a case that Bush is now a convert to the reality of the threat. With warming, as with Iraq, alarm is growing among U.S. lawmakers. Recently, West Virginia Democratic senator John D. Rockefeller IV, who has championed the coal industry in his state for 30 years, teamed up with Maine Republican senator Olympia Snowe to write a quietly impassioned letter to ExxonMobil's new chairman and C.E.O., Rex W. Tillerson. The senators asked Tillerson to have ExxonMobil cease and desist from its global-warming-denial campaign. They are, they wrote, "persuaded that the climate change denial strategy carried out by and for ExxonMobil has helped foster the perception that the United States is insensitive to a matter of great urgency for all of mankind, and has thus damaged the stature of our nation internationally." In particular, they wrote, "We fervently hope that reports that ExxonMobil intends to end its funding of the climate change denial campaign of the Competitive Enterprise Institute are true.Myron Ebell is shocked—shocked—and, of course, delighted. To be singled out among the three dozen ExxonMobil front groups is quite an honor. "Obviously it helps us with our media and general visibility," he acknowledges. In fact, ExxonMobil stopped funding C.E.I. last year. The company has also indicated to the Royal Society, Britain's prestigious academy of science, that it is reviewing the funding of all outside groups, but insists this is an annual process.The scope of that edict may not be clear until early 2008, when the company publishes its 2007 Worldwide Giving Report. Already, though, Ebell is portraying C.E.I. as "a little flyspeck" up against the awesome clout of the competition. "The major environmental groups in this country have budgets of collectively over $1 billion a year," he says. "Our budget is $3.7 million a year, of which only about a quarter goes to global warming. Add up the other [global-warming denier] groups and maybe you can get to $10 million."By late January, an eerily warm autumn has given way to an even stranger season. Europe is swept by 100-m.p.h. winds, while the Alps experience their warmest winter in 1,250 years. New Yorkers wear T-shirts and shorts on a 70-degree-Fahrenheit day. A month later, arctic weather descends, and Oswego County, New York, gets 11 feet of snow in a week, as bizarre and record-breaking a stretch of weather as the warm days of the month before. Ebell is unconcerned—still. "I remember a Christmas in the 1980s in Washington, D.C.—it was 78 degrees and I got sunburned," he reminisces. "Records are set all the time."Michael Shnayerson is a Vanity Fair contributing editor.  endit1 
===

</div>

Ebell, M

Attachments