DOCSLIB.ORG

Ties That Blind: Case Studies of Corporate Influence on Climate Change Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ties That Blind: Case Studies of Corporate Influence on Climate Change Policy Ties that Blind 1 Ties That Blind: Case Studies of Corporate Influence on Climate Change Policy The 1996 campaign season, the recent publication of fie Buying of the President, and continuing efforts by watchdog groups to promote campaign finance reform highlight what has come to be recognLzed as a pemicious influence on American politics -- corporate and special interest money. Underlying this assumption is a belief that, either directly or indirectly, finds provided to candidates iriffuences their decision-making to the benefit of the donor. Increasingly, the public has demanded that candidates more filly disclosure their hnding sources. Similarly, spokespersons ranging from Vice President Al Gore to scientists testifying before the US Congress have alleged that the outcome of scientific inquiry is influenced by sources financing the research. Unlike campaign financing from political action committees to individual candidates, scientists are not required to disclose their finding prior to testifjring before Congress or offering comment before the media. Fortunately, in the majority of cases scientists clearly identify their sources of research hnding either by their organizational affiliation with a government agency or by electing to disclose their organizational and financial ties. The impact of undisclosed corporate money on climate change policy emerged in a series of hearings called by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Congressman Robert Walker (R-PA). In several instances, the House Science Committee has called upon witnesses to teste who have received substantial amounts of undisclosed corporate finding from coal or energy interests such as Dr. Robert Balling, Jr. (who identifies himself with Arizona State University) and Dr. Patrick Michaels (who identifies himself with the University of Virginia). More strikingly, the Committee pitted Balling and Michaels against scientists like Dr. Jerry Mahlman (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) who clearly identify the sources of their funding. Ozone Action believes that individuals or organizations representing themselves before the US Congress or the media should disclose their hnding sources so that the public may more clearly determine the credibility of the position advocated by the individudorganization. After all, the public is the best judge of what the motivations and pressures of US government versus corporate coal and energy hnding may be on the climate change debate. The following three case studies seek to provide the public with hnding information about Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Patrick Michaels and a public relations experiment which they advised, the Information Council on the Environment (ICE). Case Study #1 Dr. Robert Balling, Jr., Arizona State University According to testimony offered before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission on March 15, 1995, Dr. Robert Balling has received significant levels of hnding since 1989 from the Kuwait government, foreign coaVmining corporations and Cyprus Minerals Company (a frequent funder of the "wise usel' group People for the West). The attached chart contains all hnding sources to Dr. Balling which Ozone Action has verified to date. Ozone Action 162 1 Connecticut Ave, NW Washington, DC 20009 202-265-6738 Ties that Blind 2 Kuwait Government The Kuwait government has actively participated in negotiations under the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Due to the large oil reserves in that country, the Kuwait delegation along with other Middle Eastern delegates, have opposed findings made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the effects climate change may have on living systems. * In his spoken testimony, Dr. Balling- was cross-examined about fimding he has received from the Kuwait government. The following is an excerpt: Q: And the last one on this page is from the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences, can you suggest why Kuwait, or rather the Kuwait Foundation might have any interest in global warming? A: No, I can't. I know a Kuwaiti who did a Ph.D with our group and the Kuwaiti said that he is well connected in Kuwait to funding sources. You have to understand, I'm the director of a research laboratory and there's never ending pressure to find research money. And when you discover that the Kuwaiti government has a research pool that is being allocated to scientists in my field, you would be crazy not to run out and make some attempt to put a proposal in to obtain funding from that source. [Transcript page 1111 Dr. Balling was hrther questioned as to his links to the Kuwait government: Q: ith respect to your book, The Heated Debate, isn't it true, Dr. Balling that the Pacific Research4 Institute for Public Policy was in fact founded to oppose environmental regulations? A: I know nothing of their history. I'm aware that they have been a conservative public policy group. But I did not investigate who these people were that asked me to prepare a book for them. Q: Adthey're also publishing a Middle Eastern version of your book, is that correct? A: It has been published. Q: It has been published. Is it published by this organization? A: Yes Q: Is it funded by the Kuwaiti government? A: The Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement in Science gave Dr. Nasrallah a grant and money from that grant went toward the publication of this book. [Minnesota Public Utilities Commission on March 15, 1995, Transcript page 1121 The Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science is a "government establishment," according to Muneyclips, August 21 , 1994, "Private University Gets Initial OK; 'Practical Steps Taken to Implement Project"' and the Arab Times. Aside from fbnding received by the Kuwait government to reprint The Heated Debate, Dr. Balling also . has received grants from the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science ($48,993) and the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research (amount undisclosed). Ozone Action 162 1 Connecticut Ave, NW Washington, DC 20009 202-265 6738 Ties that Blind 3 BritisWGerman Coal Interests Dr. Balling has received three grants from the British Coal Corporation for a total of $103,544 and two grants from the German Coal Mining Association for a total of $81,780. Cvprus Minerals Company Dr. Balling has received five grants from Cyprus Minerals Company (totaling $72,554) and me grant from Cyprus Minerals Chief Executive Officer ($4,904). Cumulatively, Cyprus Minerals fimding to Dr. Balling totals $77,458. r- According to the Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research (CLEAR), Cyprus Minerals was an early supporter of People for the West! giving the organization over $100,000 from 1991-1993. Jerome Bensing, Director of Governmental Af€airs at Cyprus Minerals, was a member, in 1995, of People for the West's! Board of Directors. Total Undisclosed Funding According to Harper's Magazine, Dr. Balling has received more than $200,000 from coal and oil interests over the past six years. [Harper's, "The Heat is On," Ross Gelbspan, December 1995, 351 Dr, Balling was confronted with Gelbspan's allegations by a reporter from The Arizona Republic, the following is an excerpt of that article: One of the nation's leading skeptics is Robert Balling, director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. He's treated none too gently in an article in the December issue of Harper's magazine. The essay, written by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan, makes the case that global warming poses a far greater threat than most people realize. The problem, he says, isn't that the .media are conspiring to downplay the threat but that we are being misused by people like Balling, whom he disparages as a kind of rent-a-scientist in the pocket of the energy companies. News reports on the subject, Gelbspan writes, usually 'lcorne qualified with the observation that the question of global warming can never be conclusively resolved. The confusion is intentional, expensively gift-wrapped by energy industries." He wrote that oil and coal associations spend millions to spread contrary opinions, calling on Balling and a few others who are "interchangeable ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation. 'I Gelbspan says Balling ''has received more than $200,000 from coal and oil interests." Balling, author of a 1992 book, The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality, says that number is way off. "Actually, I've received more like $700,000 over the past five years," he corrected. [Arizona Republic, November 24, 1995 9g. A2 "Can We Take the Chance Global Warming is a Sham?, Steve Wilson] At present, Ozone Action is only able to codirm that Dr. Balling has received $3 11,775 from coal and oil interests. [Please refer to attached chart, asterisks are placed next to the fimding sources included in this total] Case Study #2: Dr. Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia According to testimony offered before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission on March 15, 1995, Dr. Michaels has received fbnding from Western Fuels Association (a consortium of coal interests), Ozone Action 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW Washington, DC 20009 202-265-6738 Ties that Blind 4 German and American coal interests and Cyprus Minerals Company. Please refer to the attached chart for a fbrther listing of funding sources. Western Fuels Association Ozone Action is currently unable to ascertain the amount of money Dr. Michaels has received to publish World Climate Review. The following is an excerpt of his testimony: c Q: That's fine. Do you publish a journal called the World Climate Review, a quarterly review of issues concerning global climate change? r- A: No longer. Q: No longer? You formerly did? A: Yes. Q: And how long did you publish that? A: A little less than three years. Q: Who funded it? A: Western Fuels Association. [Minnesota Public Utilities Commission on March 15, 1995, Transcript, page 891 Dr. Michaels' own web page, however, touts World Climate Report, ''a research review edited by Dr.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Full Transcript of Inaugural AARST Science Policy Forum, New York Hilton, Friday 20 November 1998, 7–9 Pm
    social epistemology, 2000, vol. 14, nos. 2}3, 131–180 A public debate on the science of global warming: is there su¶ cient evidence which proves we should limit greenhouse gas emissions because of climate change? Full transcript of inaugural AARST Science Policy Forum, New York Hilton, Friday 20 November 1998, 7–9 pm. JAMES E. HANSEN (aµ rmative) PATRICK J. MICHAELS (negative) 1. Moderator’s introductory remarks Dr Gordon R. Mitchell : … You know, it’s been said that rhetoric of science is nothing more than a bunch of covert neo-Aristotelians blowing hot air. Tonight, we plan to test that hypothesis when AARST hosts a public debate about global warming. Before the evening’s arguments cool o¶ , it is our hope that some of the heat and the light produced by this debate will start to melt away a few of the doubts that the rhetoric of science enterprise is a rare ed and detached scholarly project, of little relevance to con- temporary science policy discussions … But before I lay out tonight’s debate format and introduce the participants, I want to talk brie y about the origins of this event. At last year’s AARST preconference gathering in Chicago, Michael Hyde and Steve Fuller issued a charge to those gathered in the audience. This charge basically involved a call for relevance, a plea for ‘measurable outcomes ’ and ‘public engagement ’ in rhetoric of science scholarship. This call to action resonated deeply with my own political commitments, because I believe that privileged members of the academy shoulder a double-sided obligation.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenp Eace.Org /Kochindustries
    greenpeace.org/kochindustries Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organization that acts to expose global environmental problems and achieve solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future. Published March 2010 by Greenpeace USA 702 H Street NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001 Tel/ 202.462.1177 Fax/ 202.462.4507 Printed on 100% PCW recycled paper book design by andrew fournier page 2 Table of Contents: Executive Summary pg. 6–8 Case Studies: How does Koch Industries Influence the Climate Debate? pg. 9–13 1. The Koch-funded “ClimateGate” Echo Chamber 2. Polar Bear Junk Science 3. The “Spanish Study” on Green Jobs 4. The “Danish Study” on Wind Power 5. Koch Organizations Instrumental in Dissemination of ACCF/NAM Claims What is Koch Industries? pg. 14–16 Company History and Background Record of Environmental Crimes and Violations The Koch Brothers pg. 17–18 Koch Climate Opposition Funding pg. 19–20 The Koch Web Sources of Data for Koch Foundation Grants The Foundations Claude R. Lambe Foundation Charles G. Koch Foundation David H. Koch Foundation Koch Foundations and Climate Denial pg. 21–28 Lobbying and Political Spending pg. 29–32 Federal Direct Lobbying Koch PAC Family and Individual Political Contributions Key Individuals in the Koch Web pg. 33 Sources pg. 34–43 Endnotes page 3 © illustration by Andrew Fournier/Greenpeace Mercatus Center Fraser Institute Americans for Prosperity Institute for Energy Research Institute for Humane Studies Frontiers of Freedom National Center for Policy Analysis Heritage Foundation American
    [Show full text]
  • The Greenhouse Effect
    The Greenhouse Effect I. SUMMARY AND OVERVIEWa This chapter examines what is variously called “climate change,” “global warming” and the “Greenhouse Effect.” These are all names for the same phenomenon: an increase in the Earth's temperature when heat is trapped near the surface. Most of this trapping is due to natural constituents of the air—water vapor, for example. But air pollutants also can trap heat, and as their concentrations increased so, too, can the Earth's temperature. Energy enters the Earth's atmosphere as sunlight. It strikes the surface, where it is converted into infrared radiation. Although the atmosphere is largely transparent to the visible radiation spectrum—sunlight—it is not to the infrared range. So heat that would other radiate into space is instead trapped in the atmosphere. That heat-trapping effect is good fortune for humanity and other life currently on Earth, because it raises the average temperature roughly 33 degrees Celsius above what it otherwise would be, making life as we know it possible.1 Over time, the energy entering the air has reached equilibrium with the energy leaving, creating Earth's current climate and, with it, the weather with which we are familiar on a day-to- day, week-to-week or year-to-year basis. With a Greenhouse Effect either greater or less than what has prevailed for millennia, the Earth would be quite different. In the absence of a Greenhouse Effect, the Earth would be ice covered. What it would be like with an enhanced Greenhouse Effect is the subject of this discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Open PDF File, 8.71 MB, for February 01, 2017 Appendix In
    Case 4:16-cv-00469-K Document 175 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID 5923 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, § § Plaintiff, § v. § No. 4:16-CV-469-K § ERIC TRADD SCHNEIDERMAN, § Attorney General of New York, in his § official capacity, and MAURA TRACY § HEALEY, Attorney General of § Massachusetts, in her official capacity, § § Defendants. § APPENDIX IN SUPPORT OF EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THIS COURT’S PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANTS Exhibit Description Page(s) N/A Declaration of Justin Anderson (Feb. 1, 2017) v – ix A Transcript of the AGs United for Clean Power App. 1 –App. 21 Press Conference, held on March 29, 2016, which was prepared by counsel based on a video recording of the event. The video recording is available at http://www.ag.ny.gov/press- release/ag-schneiderman-former-vice-president- al-gore-and-coalition-attorneys-general-across B E-mail from Wendy Morgan, Chief of Public App. 22 – App. 32 Protection, Office of the Vermont Attorney General to Michael Meade, Director, Intergovernmental Affairs Bureau, Office of the New York Attorney General (Mar. 18, 2016, 6:06 PM) C Union of Concerned Scientists, Peter Frumhoff, App. 33 – App. 37 http://www.ucsusa.org/about/staff/staff/peter- frumhoff.html#.WI-OaVMrLcs (last visited Jan. 20, 2017, 2:05 PM) Case 4:16-cv-00469-K Document 175 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 10 PageID 5924 Exhibit Description Page(s) D Union of Concerned Scientists, Smoke, Mirrors & App.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response
    A RATIONAL DISCUSSION OF CLIMATE CHANGE: THE SCIENCE, THE EVIDENCE, THE RESPONSE HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION NOVEMBER 17, 2010 Serial No. 111–114 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 62–618PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas JIM MATHESON, Utah MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BARON P. HILL, Indiana PETE OLSON, Texas HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania ALAN GRAYSON, Florida SUZANNE M.
    [Show full text]
  • Speakers at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change
    12/10/2015 The Heartland Institute - Confirmed Speakers at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change speakers last updated: March 5, 2009 The complete program for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, including cosponsor information and brief biographies of all speakers, can be downloaded in Adobe's PDF format here. More than 70 of the world’s elite scientists, economists and others specializing in climate issues will confront the subject of global warming at the second annual International Conference on Climate Change March 8­10, 2009 in New York City. They will call attention to new research that contradicts claims that Earth’s moderate warming during the twentieth century primarily was man­made and has reached crisis proportions. Headliners among the 70­plus presenters will be: American astronaut Dr. Jack Schmitt—the last living man to walk on the moon. William Gray, Colorado State University, leading researcher into tropical weather patterns. Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world’s leading experts in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves. Stephen McIntyre, primary author of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is a devastating critic of the temperature record of the past 1,000 years, particularly the work of Michael E. Mann, creator of the infamous “hockey stick” graph. That graph­­thoroughly discredited in scientific circles­­supposedly proved that mankind is responsible for a sharp increase in earth temperatures. Arthur Robinson, curator of a global warming petition signed by more than 32,000 American scientists, including more than 10,000 with doctorate degrees, rejecting the alarmist assertion that global warming has put the Earth in crisis and is caused primarily by mankind.
    [Show full text]
  • Jim Inhofe Environmental Issues
    Jim Inhofe Environmental issues Early years; 2003 Chair of Environment and Public Works committee Before the Republicans regained control of the Senate in the November 2002 elections, Inhofe had compared the United States Environmental Protection Agency to a Gestapo bureaucracy,[31][32] and EPA Administrator Carol Browner to Tokyo Rose.[33] In January 2003, he became Chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and continued challenging mainstream science in favor of what he called "sound science", in accordance with the Luntz memo.[32] Global warming a "hoax" Since 2003, when he was first elected Chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Inhofe has been the foremost Republican promoting arguments for climate change denial in the global warming controversy. He famously said in the Senate that global warming is a hoax, and has invited contrarians to testify in Committee hearings, and spread his views via the Committee website run by Marc Morano, and through his access to conservative media.[34][35] In 2012, Inhofe's The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future was published by WorldNetDaily Books, presenting his global warming conspiracy theory.[36] He said that, because "God's still up there", the "arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."[37][38][39] However, he says he appreciates that this does not win arguments, and he has "never pointed to Scriptures in a debate, because I know
    [Show full text]
  • Slowly Warming to Climate Change
    V2012 - HANNON 44.2 FINAL NO HEADER.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 9/26/17 6:14 PM Slowly Warming to Climate Change INTRODUCTION Patrick Michaels, a former professor at the University of Virginia, has built a second career at the libertarian Cato Institute issuing data-laden reports against mainstream climate change science.1 In his latest book, Lukewarming: The New Climate Science that Changes Everything, Michaels joins Paul Knappenberger, the assistant director for the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science, to introduce new arguments updating Michaels’ long-held thesis that man-made warming is a reality but that “[t]he atmosphere isn’t warming nearly as fast as is predicted in the forecasts . .”2 Forecasts of substantial warming are a problem, Michaels believes, because they “serve as the basis for some of the most onerous environmental regulations ever proposed (and adopted).”3 In Michaels’s view, reducing fossil fuel emissions to control the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere not only involves introducing suspect regulations, but may in fact be impossible.4 “We simply don’t know,” Michaels asserts, “how to power or develop a modern economy either without emitting vast quantities of carbon dioxide and/or proliferating nuclear fusion worldwide. .”5 This review first summarizes the structure and content of Michaels’s argument in Lukewarming. It then considers the significance of Michaels’s ideas in relation to the climate policy of the current presidential administration. The review concludes with a comment on Lukewarming’s place in the progression of American attitudes towards climate change. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15779/Z38VM42X02 Copyright © 2017 Regents of the University of California.
    [Show full text]
  • Hi Phil, Gavin and I Have Been Discussing, We Think It Will Be
    Hi Phil, Gavin and I have been discussing, we think it will be important for us to do something on the Thompson et al paper as soon as it appears, since its likely that naysayers are going to do their best to put a contrarian slant on this in the blogosphere. Would you mind giving us an advance copy. We promise to fully respect Nature’s embargo (i.e., we wouldn’t post any article until the paper goes public) and we don’t expect to in any way be critical of the paper. We simply want to do our best to help make sure that the right message is emphasized. thanks in advance for any help! mike — Michael E. Mann Associate Professor Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)” _____________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann” Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004 I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! Cheers Phil ____________________________________________________________________________ Dear All, This has been passed along to me by someone whose identity will remain in confidence. Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data made. Its clear that "Energy and Environment" is being run by the baddies--only a shill for industry would have republished the original Soon and Baliunas paper as submitted to "Climate Research" without even editing it. Now apparently they're at it again... My suggested response is: 1) to dismiss this as stunt, appearing in a so-called "journal" which is already known to have defied standard practices of peer-review.
    [Show full text]
  • Smoke, Mirrors & Hot
    Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science Union of Concerned Scientists January 2007 © 2007 Union of Concerned Scientists All rights reserved The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices. Union of Concerned Scientists Two Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02238-9105 Phone: 617-547-5552 Fax: 617-864-9405 Email: [email protected] Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 3 Background: The Facts about ExxonMobil 4 The Origins of a Strategy 6 ExxonMobil’s Disinformation Campaign 9 Putting the Brakes on ExxonMobil’s Disinformation Campaign 25 Appendices A. The Scientific Consensus on Global Warming 29 B. Groups and Individuals Associated with ExxonMobil’s Disinformation Campaign 31 C. Key Internal Documents 37 • 1998 "Global Climate Science Team" memo 38 • APCO memo to Philip Morris regarding the creation of TASCC 44 • Dobriansky talking points 49 • Randy Randol's February 6, 2001, fax to the Bush team calling for Watson's dismissal 51 • Sample mark up of Draft Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Science Program by Philip Cooney 56 • Email from Mryon Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute, to Phil Cooney 57 Endnotes 58 Acknowledgments Seth Shulman was the lead investigator and primary author of this report. Kate Abend and Alden Meyer contributed the final chapter. Kate Abend, Brenda Ekwurzel, Monica La, Katherine Moxhet, Suzanne Shaw, and Anita Spiess assisted with research, fact checking, and editing.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Climate Deception Dossiers
    'May IS, 1991 Infomiation . Thank you for requesting additional information on global Climate change. The science o-fp?~~-'c!in!z*e cJ~~E~cis rsen, cowrltx !{'e 2re S?? ---_.- IC.: .-._:- scA z*c c. 1- -- -- :13r,:r.,: 0: ca-j-- b'.r-2S';a'*I .-. - ixeraa ujth eich o;>er. \I L Gc, bow aat yevs 2go the Earth was warmer; ve etation thrived, and there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosp% ere than there is now. We also how that during the last ice age, carbon dioxide levels were lower than they are now. We believe 3 is wrong IO predict that higher levels of carbon dioxide will bring a catastrophic global wanning. The Information Council for the Environment was created to help foster better ublic understanding ofglobal warming and to emure that any legisP ation passed by Congress is based on scientifjc evidence. The environment must be protected. We want a clean environment and we want a green Earth. We also believe we mw mnduct more scienti' reseatdr before we can acuuazeb UndeCJImtd the complex fom ofglobal climate change. Change often begins with one son. YOUcan make a difference by sharing what you've learne rwith others. Thank you for Caring enough to request this additional information. .tcicncr .rds iwp Panc.1: DR. RORCET C B4lU~G..IR. Dm-cwr oht d Ulniatolo~g) ~ninnaVZ:~ 1nit emty Tenipr.. .I% Dr. Patrick Michaels May 15, 1991 X X X X Infomation Council r. for &e Environment Thank you for requesting more information about global climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • According to Statements Made by Senator Inhofe, the Concept of Global Climate Change Resulting from Human-Activities Has Not Been Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
    Date: 10/19/2009 Team Members: Claire Jonmaire, Lecie Houston, Michael Pothering To: Dr. Richard Schuman, Ryan Whittington Subject: Judgment Exercise Part 1.) Background on climate change Mechanics of Climate Change Climate change is defined by Microsoft Encarta as a “change in global weather patterns: long-term alteration in global weather patterns especially increases in temperature and storm activity, regarded as a potential consequence of the green house effect”. Climate change is proposed to have been caused human-activities and the related carbon emissions often refer to as greenhouse gases1. These Gases Include2: -carbon dioxide -methane -nitrous oxide -halocarbons Figure 1: A diagram of the effects of greenhouse gases in 2 the atmosphere http://www.gasdatabases.com/articles/3089/Greenhouse-gases-in-Earth%27s-atmosphere The diagram above shows the effect of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the Earth’s atmosphere. Solar radiation enters the atmosphere at a rate of 343 Watts/m2 and about half is absorbed by the Earth’s surface at a rate of approximately 168 Watts/m2. The radiation is then converted to heat energy, “causing the emission of longwave (infrared) radiation back to the atmosphere”. Because of the presence of greenhouse gases, “some of the infrared ration is absorbed and re-emitted by the greenhouse gas molecules2. Chemistry of Climate Change There are a number of different interactions between greenhouse gases and the atmosphere. There are three different reactions that contribute the greatest to ozone depletion including: (1) Ozone Dissociation (Chapman Mechanism), (2) Carbon Dioxide - Carbonic Acid Equilibrium, (3) Oxygen – Nitrous Oxide Equilibrium, and (4) Sulfur – Sulfuric Acid Equilibrium.
    [Show full text]