Meteorologist's New Website Repudiates Global Warming

[fossten]

http://www.climatepolice.com/

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?


Global Warming is not due to human contribution of CO2

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.


What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

 

[MAC1]

Role of Climate in Polar Bears' Fate Under Dispute
By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 22, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Polar bears have become an "icon" of the global warming movement, but the fate of the creatures and the role played by climate change remains the subject of dispute among scientists.

According to animal experts linked to the World Conservation Union, polar bears are in trouble as sea ice recedes and global warming accelerates, and habitat loss will impact at least the next three generations of polar bears.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in Canada has warned global warming could ultimately lead to the eradication of the species.

"If current trends continue, polar bears may vanish from large portions of their current Canadian range before the end of this century," WWF says in an online position paper.

But Willie Soon, a climate scientist based in Massachusetts, is among those raising questions about some of the most recent research on polar bears. He contends that polar bear populations have actually been increasing since hunting restrictions were initiated in the early 1970s.

Soon also said there has been too narrow a focus on the bears' Western Hudson Bay population - one of a total of 19. (Polar bears are reportedly found in 15 locations in Canada, as well as one each in Alaska, Denmark, Norway and Russia.)

A suggested link between global warming and polar bear survival is on loose footing, he argues.

In his own report on the subject, Soon said some of the temperature data is misleading, because it is drawn from warm months like September.

Studies that claim polar bears are unlikely to survive are problematic, he said, because the climate models that foresee a disappearance of sea ice focus on late summer - a period when the Hudson Bay is largely ice-free anyway, regardless of any human influence on greenhouse gas emissions, he said.

Soon said broad claims about the disappearance of sea ice before the end of the 21st century could be "misleading and confusing."

A fixation with global warming could divert attention from other "mechanisms" affecting polar bear population and health of the species, he told Cybercast News Service.

These other factors include bear interactions with humans in the Western Hudson Bay area, food availability and reproduction rates, he said.

Mitch Taylor, a polar bear expert with the Department of the Environment in Canada's far-northern Nunavut territory, has reported that the Canadian population has actually increased by 25 percent over the past 10 years.

'Deceit'

Contrary to what is implied in former Vice President Al Gore's movie (see related story) and the views of some animal specialists, James Taylor, a senior fellow of environmental policy at the conservative-leaning Heartland Institute, also does not believe the polar bear population is declining.

Taylor told Cybercast News Service in a series of email messages that the Antarctic ice mass is actually growing, the Greenland ice mass is in "rough balance," and polar bears are not drowning.

"The polar bear drowning myth is typical of the deceit practiced by many global warming alarmists," he said. "Polar bears are very strong swimmers and have been documented swimming more than 60 miles without interruption."

In 2004, researchers with the U.S. Minerals Management Service found four dead polar bears floating in the sea after a severe storm off the Alaskan coastline and attributed their deaths to the storm. These same researchers had observed the bears swimming longer distances in the past few years.

Proponents of global warming, such as Gore, believe polar bears could be jeopardized as ice glaciers break up.

'Unstable ice'

One of the first signs of trouble scientists look for when examining polar bear populations is a drop in body weight that suggests nutritional stress, explained Andrew Derocher, a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta. Other key indicators are the cub survival rate and cub production among females, he added.

Some of the most disturbing trends have been observed in Western Hudson Bay where the population has dropped by about 22 percent in the past 10 years, Derocher said in an interview.

A "large portion" of the population decline is attributable to climate change and sea ice dynamics although "excessive harvesting" by humans is another factor, he said.

Derocher has chaired the World Conservation Union's specialist group on polar bears since 2005, when the organization last reported on the species' status.

He told Cybercast News Service the anticipated rate of habitat loss over the next four to five decades is enough to deplete the population by at least a further 30 percent.

Historical patterns show polar bears living off the coast of Alaska would produce two-thirds of their young on sea ice and one-third on land, Derocher said. In recent years, however, two-thirds of the young are born and raised on land.

"It looks like the sea ice is not as stable as it used to be," Derocher said.

Yet even Derocher is cautious when it comes to the issue of bears drowning. While instances of drowned bears would be symptomatic of global warming, they could not be called definitive proof, he said.

"I'm sure other polar bears have drowned in the past, and it was just never documented," he said.

Derocher said the polar specialist group that he chairs unanimously agrees with the need to list polar bears as being "vulnerable" under the internationally agreed-upon definition found on the red list of threatened species.

'Don't rush policy changes'

Lee Foote, an associate professor specializing in wildlife ecology and management at the University of Alberta, believes that climate change is a large and important factor in impacting the polar bear habitat. At the same time, however, he is calling for additional research to precede any "overarching policy changes."

A decision to list polar bears as an endangered species - as proposed by the Bush administration last December - would be premature, Foote said. He also noted that Inuit communities could suffer economically if the bears were listed as endangered.

There are polar bear populations in the most northern regions that are not as well known as the Western Hudson Bay one, and their number may be on the increase in those areas, Foote told Cybercast News Service.

"Polar bears are being used as an icon of global climate change, yet [changes in] populations of these bears are a response to, not a cause of, climate change," Foote said in recent congressional testimony.

"Regardless of bear populations, climate will be unaffected by them. Hence, more protections for bears is illogical in remedying climate change," he added.

 

[fossten]

You know, I've shown this very data to a woman at work with whom I discuss politics frequently. She's an environmentalist, and pro-abortion, but I've been able to open her eyes to many things conservative. She's changed her stance on many things because of our conversations. However, often I'll show her some data, like the exact article above about polar bears, and she'll just stubbornly set her chin and say, "I still believe what I believe." The same thing for abortion. We have long discussions about it, and I successfully obliterate all her arguments (in a friendly manner) and she says, "You've given me something to think about, but I still believe it ought to be legal." When I press her for a reason, I get nothing. It's fascinating yet frustrating. I achieved much the same result with gun control. "I still believe there ought to be some gun control." "Why?" "It's what I believe."

I think once somebody like Al Gore has done his dirty work and convinced a large portion of media elites and other useful idiots, it's going to take a miracle to change the minds of the masses. These sheeple have their minds made up because they are emotionally invested in the idea of global warming, abortion, gun control, or whatever the imminent catastrophe of the day is. What has to happen is, for example with Mitt Romney changing his stance on abortion due to a family tragedy, an event in that person's life must shake the emotional foundation of their belief so much that they question it. Otherwise, they will stubbornly, illogically, irrationally cling to those beliefs as though their very life depended on them not being swayed.

Any thoughts you guys have on this kind of mindset, and any experiences you have had in this area would be helpful.

 

[Marcus]

Now show your co-worker this:

Mr. Cool
Nurturing doubt about climate change is big business

(Globe and Mail, Aug. 12, '06)



On a cloudless morning in June, Tim Ball has joined a hundred-odd members of the Comox Valley Probus Club for a buffet of coffee, cinnamon buns and pink lemonade. As this group of retired business people wraps up its monthly meeting, Prof. Ball surveys the crowd and runs a hand over his suntanned dome.

He does not appear the least bit fatigued, which is remarkable considering that the 67-year-old former University of Winnipeg professor has spent much of the last couple of months crisscrossing the country, addressing community forums, business groups, newspaper editorial boards and politicians about climate change. He has been nearly as dogged as Al Gore, whose own globe-hopping slide show is the subject of the documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth.

But that is where the similarity between them ends.

Prof. Ball clutches a cordless microphone and smiles out at the sea of white hair. He teases the audience about their age, throws in a hockey joke, then tells the crowd that, unlike Mr. Gore, he is a climatologist, and he is not at all panicking about climate change.

"The temperature hasn't gone up," he asserts. "But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming."

Over the next hour, Prof. Ball stitches together folksy anecdotes with a succession of charts, graphs and pictures to form a collage of doubt about the emerging consensus on climate change. There's a map of Canada covered in ice 20,000 years ago - proof, he says, that wild swings in the earth's temperature are perfectly normal. There's a graph suggesting that atmospheric carbon dioxide is at its lowest level in 600 million years.

Gaining momentum, he declares that Environment Canada and other agencies fabricated the climate-change scare in order to attract funding for propaganda and expensive attempts to model climate change using supercomputers.

"Environment Canada can't even predict the weather!" he bellows. "How can you tell me that they have any idea what its going to be like 100 years from now if they can't tell me what the weather is going to be like in four months, or even next week?"

As proof of the climate-change conspiracy, Prof. Ball shows the crowd a graph with a kinked line jigging across it. This is the famous "hockey-stick graph" published by Pennsylvania State University scientist Michael Mann and his team in 1999, which shows temperatures to be fairly stable for hundreds of years, then rising rapidly in the last few decades. Al Gore, among many others, uses it to illustrate the case for global warming.

Prof. Ball claims that the Mann team "cooked the books," and that its blunders were confirmed just a few days previously, in a report to the Congress by the U.S. Academies of Science. "He threw out all the data that didn't fit his hypothesis," Prof. Ball says, without offering evidence to back the charge. His outrage is now as searing as the baking-hot sun outside. "I personally think [Mann] should be in jail!"

In fact, Prof. Ball says, the real danger for Canada is not warming, but cooling: "It's like Y2K," he concludes. "We all just need to calm down."

He is met with raucous applause. It is as though a weight has been lifted from the audience's collective shoulders: What a relief to learn that this global crisis, one they keep hearing will bring extreme weather, submerge small island nations and devastate economies, may be nothing to worry about.

Few in the audience have any idea that Prof. Ball hasn't published on climate science in any peer-reviewed scientific journal in more than 14 years. They do not know that he has been paid to speak to federal MPs by a public-relations company that works for energy firms. Nor are they aware that his travel expenses are covered by a group supported by donors from the Alberta oil patch.

Most Canadians recognize, of course, that fossil-fuel businesses could lose large sums if the federal government moves to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions.

But they may not realize that by quietly backing the movement behind maverick figures such as Prof. Ball, the fuel industry - with its close ties to the party that brought Prime Minister Stephen Harper to power - is succeeding, bit by bit, in influencing both public opinion and Canadian policy on global warming, including the international Kyoto Accord.

An Ipsos Reid poll released in May found that, despite increasing scientific evidence to the contrary, four of every 10 Canadians surveyed still agreed with Prof. Ball's assertion that climate change is due to natural warming and cooling patterns.

"He is a very entertaining performer, very slick," says Neil Brown, the Conservative MLA for Calgary-Nose Hill, who attended a presentation Prof. Ball made to a caucus of provincial Tories in Calgary. "When someone shows up and tells me that the earth is actually cooling, then it gets my attention."

The scientific mainstream is unequivocal that global warming is real, happening at a rate unprecedented in human history, and most likely caused mainly by human greenhouse-gas emissions. Last year, the national academies of science of all the G8 nations, representing most scientists in the developed world, sent a joint message to their leaders urging prompt action.

In February, the UN and the World Meteorological Society's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which brings together more than 2,000 scientists to review tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers on climate science, will release its fourth report. The authors say it will contain a warning that human-caused global warming could drive the Earth's temperature to levels far higher than previously predicted.

Andrew Weaver is the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, and a lead author of a chapter in the upcoming IPCC report. He gives a frustrated sigh at the mention of Tim Ball's cross-country tour.

"He says stuff that is just plain wrong. But when you are talking to crowds, when you are talking on TV, there is no challenge, there is no peer review," Prof. Weaver says.

Like other senior scientists, he charges that Prof. Ball's arguments are a grab bag of irrelevancies and falsehoods: "Ball says that our climate models do not [account for the warming effects of] water vapour. That's absurd. They all do."

Likewise, he says, Prof. Ball's claims that climate change could be explained by variations in the earth's orbit or by sunspots are discounted by widely available data.

Many of Prof. Ball's other arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. Consider the hockey-stick graph: He was right that the U.S. Academies of Science had delivered a review of climate science to Congress. But their report concluded that temperatures in the last 25 years really have been the highest in 400 years. Moreover, the panelists assured reporters that there was no evidence at all that the Mann team cherry-picked its data - completely contradicting what Prof. Ball told his audience in Comox.



"What Ball is doing is not about science," says Prof. Weaver. "It is about politics."

Leaders throughout Europe have accepted the IPCC position on climate change, and have been looking for ways to take collective action, primarily via the Kyoto Accord. Yet North Americans have lagged behind, hamstrung by a lingering debate in the media and among politicians about climate science.

How did this doubt take hold?

In a now-infamous 2003 memo, U.S. pollster and consultant Frank Luntz advised Republican politicians to cultivate uncertainty when talking about climate change: "Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate ," wrote Mr. Luntz (the italics are his own).

Nurturing doubt about climate-change science has become big business for public-relations companies and lobbyists south of the border. Between 2000 and 2003, ExxonMobil alone gave more than $8.6-million (U.S.) to think tanks, consumer groups and policy organizations engaged in anti-Kyoto messaging, according to the company's own records. Those groups promote the minority of scientists who still dispute the IPCC consensus on climate change, creating the appearance of widespread scientific disagreement.

Mr. Luntz met with Prime Minister Harper in May, but the Conservatives already had adopted his advice. Mr. Harper was emphasizing that climate change was but an "emerging science" long before he cancelled an array of programs designed to promote energy conservation.

Environment Minister and Edmonton-Spruce Grove MP Rona Ambrose, for example, has talked up the flaws of the Kyoto Accord, while steadfastly rejecting its modest emission-reduction targets. And on June 30, the government simply disappeared its main climate-change web site ( www.climatechange.gc.ca ), which once contained educational materials for teachers.

However, given the resonance of the climate-change issue with most Canadians, political leaders can't afford to denounce mainstream science too loudly. That task has instead been taken up by activists in the Conservative Party's Alberta heartland.

Over the past four years, a coalition of oil-patch geologists, Tory insiders, anonymous donors and oil-industry PR professionals has come together to manufacture public consent for Canada's withdrawal from Kyoto. Through a Calgary-based society ironically dubbed the Friends of Science, they have leveraged Tim Ball and a handful of other "climate skeptics" onto podiums and editorial pages across the country.

While the federal government stalls, the skeptics preach doubt, softening the public for a diluted "Made-in-Canada" climate policy. Prof. Ball admits that when he meets with business leaders and politicians,he advises them to weigh the high price of action against more cost-effective "lip service."

These efforts may help delay emissions caps for years. Not bad for a campaign that began with a bitch session among a clutch of oil-patch retirees.

"We started out without a nickel, mostly retired geologists, geophysicists and retired businessmen, all old fogeys," says Albert Jacobs, a geologist and retired oil-explorations manager, proudly remembering the first meeting of the Friends of Science Society in the curling lounge of Calgary's Glencoe Club back in 2002.

"We all had experience dealing with Kyoto, and we decided that a lot of it was based on science that was biased, incomplete and politicized."

Mr. Jacobs says he suspects that the Kyoto Accord was devised as a tool by United Nations bureaucrats to push the world towards a world socialist government under the UN. "You know," he says, "to this day, there is no scientific proof that human-caused C02 is the main cause of global warming."

He managed to insert that last message into the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists' official statement on climate change in 2003. But he and his fellow Friends of Science decided that if they wanted to have broad influence on climate policy, they needed money in order to stage events, create publicity materials, commercials and a web site, and reach the media and politicians. Tim Ball spoke at the group's first fundraiser.

But the event didn't raise enough for the group's ambitious plans. There was plenty of money for the anti-Kyoto cause in the oil patch, but the Friends dared not take money directly from energy companies. The optics, Mr. Jacobs admits, would have been terrible.

This conundrum, he says, was solved by University of Calgary political scientist Barry Cooper, a well-known associate of Stephen Harper.

As his is privilege as a faculty member, Prof. Cooper set up a fund at the university dubbed the Science Education Fund. Donors were encouraged to give to the fund through the Calgary Foundation, which administers charitable giving in the Calgary area, and has a policy of guarding donors' identities. The Science Education Fund in turn provides money for the Friends of Science, as well as Tim Ball's travel expenses, according to Mr. Jacobs.

And who are the donors? No one will say.

"[The money's] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry," says Prof. Cooper. "It's also from foundations and individuals. I can't tell you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or the individuals."

When pushed in another interview, however, Prof. Cooper admits, "There were some oil companies."

The brilliance of the plan is that by going through the foundation and the university fund, donors get anonymity as well as charitable status for their donations. In the last two years, the Science Education Fund has received more than $200,000 in charitable donations through the Calgary Foundation. Yet its marketing director Kerry Longpré said in June that she had never heard of the Friends of Science. The foundation, she said, deals only with the university, which is left to administer donations as it sees fit.

Prof. Cooper and Mr. Jacobs both affirm that the Science Education Fund paid the bills for the Friends' anti-Kyoto video, Climate Catastrophe Cancelled. It features Canada's most vocal climate skeptics, including Prof. Ball, University of Ottawa hydrologist and paleoclimatologist Ian Clark, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson and University of Ottawa lecturer Tad Murty.

It also includes Sallie Baliunas, a senior scientist with the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington, a fiercely anti-Kyoto think tank which has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from ExxonMobile.

Roman Cooney, the university's vice-president of external relations, insists that the Friends of Science is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by the school. And when he saw the University of Calgary's coat of arms on early copies of the anti-Kyoto video, Mr. Cooney ordered Prof. Cooper to remove it.

There is a letter-sized piece of paper bearing the words "Friends of Science" taped to the wall in Kevin Grandia's Vancouver office. From that single sheet, Mr. Grandia has strung a web of string, leading to the names of individuals, free-market think-tanks, private companies and charitable foundations. And from them more strings lead, invariably, to the names of energy corporations.

Mr. Grandia is being paid full time by James Hoggan and Associates, a public-relations firm, to examine the connections between fossil-fuel companies, the climate skeptics, and the PR industry itself.

"Follow the money trail," says Mr. Grandia, ball of string in hand. "Why the hell do all of these lead back to oil and gas?"

Take Fred Singer, a former professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, who supplied one of the charts for Tim Ball's slide show. A string leads from Mr. Singer's name straight to ExxonMobile, which has given his Science and Environment Policy Project $20,000 (U.S.), according to the oil company's 1998 and 2000 grant records.

Other strings loop from Mr. Singer to Shell, Arco, Unocal, Sun Energy and the American Gas Association. In a Massachusetts superior court deposition, he admitted to having consulted for all those companies, as well as the Global Climate Coalition, whose members in industry spent tens of millions of dollars to fight the Kyoto Accord in the 1990s.

Mr. Grandia's boss, James Hoggan, chuckles when he sees the wall of paper and string. Mr. Hoggan, whose clients include Alcan, CP Rail, Norske Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation, has assigned two of his 19 staffers to this bit of intra-industry tail-chasing. (It is supported by a donation of $300,000 from former Internet entrepreneur John Lefebvre, now an environmentalist and philanthropist.)

Mr. Hoggan says he got involved simply because he was angry that his peers in PR were muddying public understanding of climate science. "For years there have been these kind of campaigns that are aimed at manipulating public opinion, and not necessarily manipulating it in the direction of good public policy, but trying to fight government regulations that will cost industry money.

"It happened with the tobacco industry. It happened with the chemical industry. It happened with the asbestos industry. And now it's happening with climate change," he says.

"It makes me extremely angry. I don't think that the people who are involved in this should be able to get away with it. My goal is to find out as much as we can about these people and make it public. Who are they? Who is paying them? What motivates them? How is it they can sleep at night?"

Several of Mr. Hoggan's peers show up on Grandia's Friends of Science spider web. First is Morten Paulsen of the PR giant, Fleishman-Hillard, who wears three hats. In one, he's a long-time Tory/Reform/Canadian Alliance activist - the co-chair of the Alberta Conservatives' 2006 convention, and one-time director of communications for Preston Manning. In another, Mr. Paulsen is the registered lobbyist for ConocoPhillips Canada, the country's third-largest oil-and-natural-gas production and exploration company.

Mr. Paulsen also happens to be the registered lobbyist for the Friends of Science. Indeed, he used to be listed as the main public-relations contact on the Friends' website. Then, in June, his Tory connections were revealed on Mr. Grandia's blog (desmogblog.org). Mr. Paulsen's name no longer appears on the site.

Then there is Tom Harris, Ottawa director of the High Park Group, which is a registered lobbyist for the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Gas Association.

Mr. Harris has written several essays attacking Kyoto and the science behind climate change for the National Post and the CanWest newspaper chain. In his articles, he quotes several members of the Friends of Science advisory board - including Profs. Ball, Khandekar, Patterson and Murty - but he never mentions his own connections to the Calgary organization.

In 2002, for example, Mr. Harris organized the Friends' first Ottawa press conference in 2002, and helped make their video, according to Mr. Jacobs. And as recently as May, he organized a trip to Ottawa for Tim Ball, paying him $2,000 to give a presentation to federal MPs.

The election of a Conservative government to Ottawa presented a golden opportunity for the Friends of Science to help reopen the debate on Kyoto. By this year, they had circulated thousands of Climate Catastrophe Cancelled DVDs among politicians and news outlets, ran a radio ad on stations in Alberta, put up a web site, and jetted Tim Ball across the country for face time with media, business and politicians.

The climax of the spring campaign was an open letter to Mr. Harper, printed in the Financial Post and other CanWest chain newspapers on April 6. The letter, signed by "60 experts in climate and related scientific disciplines," exhorted the Prime Minister to hold public consultations on the government's climate-change plan. (Jacobs says the Friends didn't write the letter, which is featured on the front page of the society's web site. The society's advisory board and president all signed it.)

Members of the climate and meteorological science establishment quickly noted that only a third of the names on the petition were Canadian. Many of them were economists and geologists, not climate experts. One of them, Gordon Swaters, a professor of applied mathematics at the University of Alberta, later said that he disagreed with the letter completely.

Several of the other signatories had received money from the oil, gas and coal industries in the U.S. - Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia, for example, was handed more than $100,000 for climate skeptic work by the coal-based Intermountain Rural Electric Association this July, according to the Associated Press.

"These people are ignorant. Well-meaning, but just plain ignorant," fumed Ian Rutherford, executive director of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, which represents 800 Canadian atmospheric and oceanic scientists and professionals.

"The Friends of Science are driven by ideology and some kind of a misplaced understanding of how the world works. Many are what you would call paleogeologists. Looking at the geological record, they see evidence of wild swings in climate. Of course these swings are there: If you go back hundreds of millions of years, 40-million years, even 400,000 years, you will find wild swings in temperature over long periods of time. But that's irrelevant. There was hardly any life on earth, let alone human life, at that time. So their time scale is all out of whack.

"None of them ever come to our scientific conferences. They know they would be laughed out of the building. The stuff they say, some of it is so nonsensical it's hardly worth discussing."

In its own letter to the Prime Minister, the Meteorological and Oceanographic Society objected to the Friends' complaints about a lack of debate, pointing out that Canadian climate scientists from universities, government and the private sector participate actively in the IPCC's international reviews. The government, it argued, should be relying on IPCC reports for good scientific information.

But various levels of government have gone on to give Prof. Ball an audience. This spring he addressed the Alberta Tories in Calgary, as well as the province's standing policy committee on energy and sustainable development. On the trip Tom Harris organized for him in May, he met with the Ottawa Citizen editorial board, and gave his slide show to a half-dozen federal Conservative MPs and a clutch of Tory staffers. (Prof. Ball is not listed in the federal government's Lobbyists' Registry.)

He made a particular impression on Brad Trost, MP for Saskatoon Humboldt: "It really broadened the perspective. You know, maybe there is more uncertainty on [climate change]. Maybe we need to put more research into this to get a better idea," says Mr. Trost. "Just like the Y2K problem, we were a little oversold on that one. You sort of wonder. Just because something is repeated often, it doesn't make it true."

"In public relations," says Mr. Hoggan, "we call this the echo-chamber technique. You have Tim Ball saying the polar bears are fine. Then you get Tim Ball's PR guy writing the same thing. And then Tim Ball takes to the road, talks to reporters and does press briefings, making sure the message is repeated over and over.

"The effect is to delay public judgment on climate change, and thereby delay policy."


***


In his speeches and interviews, Tim Ball consistently denies any knowledge that he is receiving funds from oil companies.

"I wish I was being paid by them," he deadpanned at his Comox show. "Maybe then I could afford their products."

Like Mr. Jacobs, Prof. Ball says he doesn't know, and doesn't want to know, who forks out the money for his expenses and activism. He simply wants to talk about the science, and will do so to whomever will listen.

Certainly, climate skepticism isn't exactly making Prof. Ball rich. He says that although he has earned as much as $5,000 for speeches to industry groups such as lime producers, he more frequently gives talks for free.

He is a warm, likable character, and there is no reason to believe he is not sincere in his concern for science and public policy. He clearly relishes the spotlight, and seems to grow taller, sharper and brighter on stage. He punches the air with his microphone, and breaks out into a broad grin at the crowd's response to his jabs at Environment Canada.

Still, it must take something more than conviction to propel him through the more than 100 barn-burning speeches he gave across the country in the past year. He angrily claims that his stance has led to being denied research funding from Environment Canada, although he admits that he has not actually applied for federal climate-research funding in more than a decade.

One old colleague at the University of Winnipeg puts Prof. Ball's passion down to sheer anti-authoritarianism. "He is a contrarian. He lives to challenge authority," says the professor of geography, who would speak only anonymously.

"If the IPCC scientists suddenly recanted," he jokes, "Tim would be the first one out there saying, 'Wait a minute, global warming really is happening!' "

Prof. Ball's adversaries admit that skeptical inquiry serves to make the science better. They just wish he would conduct new research and practice his skepticism on the pages of the peer-reviewed journals.

For his part, Prof. Ball insists that the reason he lobbies so tirelessly on the issue is his frustration that the skeptics' arguments aren't reflected in the pronouncements of scientific institutions like the IPCC. Perhaps so, but his hard work is helping weaken the power of such internationally respected institutions.

The proof, for Friends of Science founder Albert Jacobs, is in the policy.

"Our success is very recent, and our success is tied to the Conservative government," Mr. Jacobs says. "Rona Ambrose, she has been tearing down that Kyoto building."

The next big challenge, he says, is to reach children. The Friends of Science is now lobbying to have its message included in the grade-school curriculum.

 

[MAC1]

Tommy, the problem with the anti-global warming conspiracy theory is that many prominent scientists disagree with the global warming hysteria propagated by the likes of Al Gore, etc. Does this mean they're all conspiring to spread falsehoods and propaganda?

 

[Marcus]

Tommy, the problem with the anti-global warming conspiracy theory is that many prominent scientists disagree with the global warming hysteria propagated by the likes of Al Gore, etc. Does this mean they're all conspiring to spread falsehoods and propaganda?

It certainly seems that many of them have ties to energy companies in one way or another. In other cases, these prominent scientists are not even climatologists, but work in areas that are unrelated.

It's funny how the anti-global warmers continue to accuse the pro-global warmers of being in it for the money or for some neferious political reasons, yet the evidence, including the article I posted, raises the same questions about their own motives. The fact that they go to such great lengths to hide their financial sources ought to give pause.

A couple more things in general...

This whole thing about how scientists in the 70's were warning about "global cooling" is mostly a myth. What was being said at the time in scientific journals was that an ice age was coming "soon". Much of the press took that to mean "imminent". What they failed to realize was that to climatologists, "soon" meant 25,000 years from now.

Something I think many people actually remember from back then was the talk in the early 80's about "nuclear winter", which involved climate change caused by the dust thrown up into the atmosphere during a nuclear exchange with Russia. I think a lot of people confuse their memories of that with the ice-age talk, which didn't amount to a whole lot, but gets reported by the global warming deniers as "proof" that scientists were wrong then so they must be wrong now.

By the way, up until fairly recently, the anti-global warming folks even denied the possibility that the earth was warming. Now you will find find very few who are still willing to make that claim. The evidence is overwhelming that the earth is warming. In spite of the recent winter storms, average yearly temperatures globally have been going up. January was the warmest on record.

So the term "anti-global warming" is really a misnomer. It's happening. The only remaining question is man's contribution to global warming, and that is still open to debate, although the evidence seems to points to our having a large influence on it. The problem with doing nothing until we know for sure is that by the time we DO know for sure, it'll be too late. Frankly I'm of the opinion that it already is too late, and that we're just gonna have to deal with it. And it ain't gonna be no paradise.

 

[fossten]

Tommy, I wasn't asking you. Nevertheless, your IPCC comments are baloney. The IPCC is nothing BUT a political document, made by politicians.

 

[fossten]

Frankly I'm of the opinion that it already is too late, and that we're just gonna have to deal with it. And it ain't gonna be no paradise.

If it IS already too late, then why are you advocating trying to do anything about it? What good would it do to cripple the economy of this country while Russia and China are exempt?

 

[MonsterMark]

The Goracle gets owned!

Typical liberal. Do as I say, not as I do.

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:



Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy. *owned*

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

For Further Information, Contact:
Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431
editor@tennesseepolicy.org

 

[fossten]

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

Geez, he's too dumb to use SIPs panels on his mansion? What an idiot.

 

[Marcus]

Tommy, I wasn't asking you. Nevertheless, your IPCC comments are baloney. The IPCC is nothing BUT a political document, made by politicians.

You don't remember asking me what?

And I don't recall making any "IPCC comments", balony or not.

But to address your point, you can't accuse the IPCC of having a political agenda (well, you will anyway) without also considering the possibility that the GW deniers don't also have one.

 

[Marcus]

If it IS already too late, then why are you advocating trying to do anything about it? What good would it do to cripple the economy of this country while Russia and China are exempt?

First of all, I may be wrong that it's too late.

Second, you fail to consider what the cost will be down the road if we do nothing. I guarantee that if global warming continues on its trend, man-made or not, the costs will dwarf the money spent on cutting emissions now. Even the Pentagon has looked into it, and it's not pretty.

What the deniers fail to take into account in their doomsday scenerios regarding costs are the very likely benefits, both scientifically and economically (not to mention environmentally), of a major effort into alternate energy sources. Wind and solar are technologies still in relative infancy. There are others, like geothermal and wave power, that are only still on the drawing boards. These things have the potential to reap huge rewards, but we're still being held hostage by the Big Oil crack dealers.

America could become the world leader in cheap, renewable energy production, while eliminating our dependence on Jihad Juice, but only when we finally decide to do it. That isn't pie in the sky idealism, it's entirely possible. Hell, it was only seven years after Kennedy challenged us to put a man on the moon until it became a reality. And we were starting almost from scratch! And all we got out of that were a few rocks, non-stick cookware, and a breakfast drink.

 

[fossten]

First of all, I may be wrong that it's too late.

Second, you fail to consider what the cost will be down the road if we do nothing. I guarantee that if global warming continues on its trend, man-made or not, the costs will dwarf the money spent on cutting emissions now. Even the Pentagon has looked into it, and it's not pretty.

What the deniers fail to take into account in their doomsday scenerios regarding costs are the very likely benefits, both scientifically and economically (not to mention environmentally), of a major effort into alternate energy sources. Wind and solar are technologies still in relative infancy. There are others, like geothermal and wave power, that are only still on the drawing boards. These things have the potential to reap huge rewards, but we're still being held hostage by the Big Oil crack dealers.

America could become the world leader in cheap, renewable energy production, while eliminating our dependence on Jihad Juice, but only when we finally decide to do it. That isn't pie in the sky idealism, it's entirely possible. Hell, it was only seven years after Kennedy challenged us to put a man on the moon until it became a reality. And we were starting almost from scratch! And all we got out of that were a few rocks, non-stick cookware, and a breakfast drink.

Your use of the phrase "cheap, renewable energy" is an oxymoron.

1. Ethanol is EXPENSIVE and will drive the price of corn through the roof, bankrupting nations like Mexico.
2. Solar energy is EXPENSIVE, and no cheap methods or tech have been invented to dispose of batteries.
3. Wind is EXPENSIVE, especially when hypocrites like Ted Kennedy oppose building wind farms b/c it affects their sailing lanes.
4. Oil is cheap and plentiful, and there is enough in the United States and surrounding waters to make us self-sufficient, if only the liberal Democrats and Repubs would allow us to drill for it. You can't have it both ways.
5. There is no logical reason to explore alternative energy sources unless oil supply is dwindling, and the evidence shows that oil supplies are INCREASING.

Would you agree that if we could drill our own oil, that would be a satisfactory way of becoming energy independent, or are you simply anti-oil?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=2767979&page=1

Report: Big Money Confusing Public on Global Warming

By CLAYTON SANDELL

Jan. 3, 2007 — A new report details what it calls an "enormously successful" disinformation campaign by ExxonMobil that used tobacco-industry tactics to fund groups who cast doubts and deceive the public on the scientific consensus regarding global warming.

The report was released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a nonprofit environmental advocacy group based in Massachusetts. Much of the information contained in the report had been previously uncovered by ExxonSecrets.org, a database run by environmenalists at Greenpeace.

ExxonMobil spokesman Dave Gardner, in an e-mail to reporters, initially called the report an "an attempt to smear our name and confuse the discussion of the serious issue of [carbon dioxide] emissions and global climate change."

Gardner later deleted that portion of the statement about the report, but reiterated that "many of the conclusions are inaccurate."

The UCS report found that between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil has funnelled about $16 million to 43 advocacy groups and 16 individuals in an effort to "manufacture uncertainty" and ultimately stall government action that would require a mandatory cut in greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide. The group said the figures in the report were compiled from ExxonMobil corporate reports.

"ExxonMobil has, in a cynical and manipulative strategy, helped create a kind of echo chamber to amplify the views of a carefully selected group of spokespeople whose work has been largely discredited by the scientific community," said Seth Schulman, the report's primary author, in a conference call today with reporters.

The strategy is built on the notion, the report found, that "public opinion can be easily manipulated because science is complex, because people tend not to notice where their information comes from, and because the effects of global warming are just beginning to become visible."

The report compared the company's efforts to the strategy used by tobacco companies to downplay the effects of smoking.

The vast majority of the world's climate scientists agree that human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, are contributing to a greenhouse gas effect that has warmed the globe at an unprecedented rate.

ExxonMobil has acknowledged as much.

"Even with many scientific uncertainties, the risk that greenhouse gas emissions may have serious impacts justifies taking action," Gardner said. "What is clear today is that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change, and that the use of fossil fuels is a major source of these emissions."

The UCS report, however, calls the financial connections between ExxonMobil and a number of organizations — including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, Heritage Foundation and the Media Research Center— part of an effort to obscure the scientific evidence on global warming.

ExxonMobil has said it is reviewing the organizations the company funds and has noted in the past that the Competitive Enterprise Institute did not receive any Exxon money this year.

"Our support extends to a fairly broad array of organizations," Gardner said in his email today. "Our financial support does not connote any substantive control over or responsibility for the policy recommendations or analyses they produce."

The UCS report also found that ExxonMobil has, through various organizations, funded a number of climate science contrarians. In the conference call, several were singled out, including Dr. Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Baliunas coauthored a widely criticized 2003 article that suggested natural cycles, not human activity, are causing the planet to warm. The report was widely cited by groups that receive funding from ExxonMobil, according to UCS.

Contacted by ABC News, Baliunas declined to comment on the UCS report because she had not yet seen it.

In October, Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., wrote a letter to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, asking the company to "come clean about its past denial activities."

A month earlier, Britain's scientific academy — the Royal Society — criticized ExxonMobil for funding groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change, by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change, or by overstating the amount and significance of uncertainty in knowledge."

The company responded in a statement, saying "we know that carbon emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change — we don't debate or dispute this."

Tillerson also acknowledged the issue of global warming in comments to a group of business executives in November, saying "the potential risks to society could prove to be significant, so despite the areas of uncertainties that do exist, it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the potential risks."


Seems pretty simple to me, "just follow the money". Who has the most to gain financially from this debate on GW? The GW advocates? Or the GW deniers?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2612021&page=1

Senators to Exxon: Stop the Denial

By CLAYTON SANDELL

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27, 2006 — ExxonMobil should stop funding groups that have spread the idea that global warming is a myth and that try to influence policymakers to adopt that view, two senators said today in a letter to the oil company.

In their letter to ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson, Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., appealed to Exxon's sense of corporate responsibility, asking the company to "come clean about its past denial activities."

The two senators called on ExxonMobil to "end any further financial assistance" to groups "whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth."

Phone calls to ExxonMobil were not immediately returned to ABC News.

An upcoming study from the Union of Concerned Scientists reported that ExxonMobil funded 29 climate change denial groups in 2004 alone. Since 1990, the report said, the company has spent more than $19 million funding groups that promote their views through publications and Web sites that are not peer reviewed by the scientific community.

The senators singled out the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank, and the Tech Central Station Web site as beneficiaries of Exxon's efforts to sow doubt within the public about the scientific consensus behind global warming.

"We are convinced that ExxonMobil's long-standing support of a small cadre of global climate change skeptics, and those skeptics' access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy," the letter said.

The letter said ExxonMobil's efforts to confuse haven't worked everywhere.

"It has failed miserably in confusing, much less convincing, the legitimate scientific community," the senators wrote.

The letter comes as dozens of major U.S. companies, including Wal-Mart, Citigroup and GE — get set to gather in New York next week for the Corporate Climate Response conference. The conference provides a forum for companies to discuss their efforts to address global warming, a topic getting increased attention in boardrooms across the United States.

This week, investment bank Morgan Stanley announced it would invest $3 billion in carbon emission credits and other projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the next five years.

And last month, British mogul Richard Branson pledged $3 billion over 10 years — profits from his airline and train companies — to invest in energy sources that do not contribute to global warming.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?


Global Warming is not due to human contribution of CO2

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007 ............

LOL, what a clown. This crybaby is claiming he's been a "victim" of smear, denounces the conclusions of thousands of climatoligists, yet offers ZERO evidence to support his claims to the contrary. Figures the thread starter would drink the entire pitcher of kool-aid mixed up by these so-called "experts".

 

[fossten]

LOL, what a clown. This crybaby is claiming he's been a "victim" of smear, denounces the conclusions of thousands of climatoligists, yet offers ZERO evidence to support his claims to the contrary. Figures the thread starter would drink the entire pitcher of kool-aid mixed up by these so-called "experts".

As opposed to the pitcher of arsenic-laced Kool-Aid you are drinking by falling for FIRST-CLASS HYPOCRITE Algore's schlockumentary?

:bowrofl:

"I'm not a scientist, but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night."

-- Al Gore

It's statists like you who are the bane of the culture of this country. You would remove our freedom to live as we want and attempt to have government control over our lives. I hope for your sake that you aren't one of the minions sent over to my house by the Fed one day.

 

[fossten]

From the Chicago Tribune in 2001:

Bush Loves Ecology -- At Home
by Rob Sullivan

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.
Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize. [LIKE ALGORE'S HOUSE???]

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.

 

[Marcus]

Your use of the phrase "cheap, renewable energy" is an oxymoron.

1. Ethanol is EXPENSIVE and will drive the price of corn through the roof, bankrupting nations like Mexico.
2. Solar energy is EXPENSIVE, and no cheap methods or tech have been invented to dispose of batteries.
3. Wind is EXPENSIVE, especially when hypocrites like Ted Kennedy oppose building wind farms b/c it affects their sailing lanes.
4. Oil is cheap and plentiful, and there is enough in the United States and surrounding waters to make us self-sufficient, if only the liberal Democrats and Repubs would allow us to drill for it. You can't have it both ways.
5. There is no logical reason to explore alternative energy sources unless oil supply is dwindling, and the evidence shows that oil supplies are INCREASING.

Would you agree that if we could drill our own oil, that would be a satisfactory way of becoming energy independent, or are you simply anti-oil?

You apparently missed my point. All technology is expensive until it mass-production kicks in. We haven't scratched the surface yet on solar or wind power, not to mention other technologies like geothermal. It will only become cheap if we make the investment up front, but first we have to get our elected officials out of the pockets of the oil companies.

Your assertion that oil supplies are increasing is a rather vague statement. The fact that we're coming up with new ways to extract oil, like from "oil sand", may increase the supply, but it ain't gonna come cheap. And I'm not interested in debating the theory of "abiotic" oil, because I think it's a bunch of pseudo-scientific hooey. I know you're not going to be swayed either, so spare me the copy-paste, because I've read about it and I'm not buying it.

The amount of oil we might extract from ANWR and the gulf would add to the supply for sure, but it's still a drop in the barrel compared to what we import.

 

[fossten]

You apparently missed my point. All technology is expensive until it mass-production kicks in. We haven't scratched the surface yet on solar or wind power, not to mention other technologies like geothermal. It will only become cheap if we make the investment up front, but first we have to get our elected officials out of the pockets of the oil companies.

Your assertion that oil supplies are increasing is a rather vague statement. The fact that we're coming up with new ways to extract oil, like from "oil sand", may increase the supply, but it ain't gonna come cheap. And I'm not interested in debating the theory of "abiotic" oil, because I think it's a bunch of pseudo-scientific hooey. I know you're not going to be swayed either, so spare me the copy-paste, because I've read about it and I'm not buying it.

The amount of oil we might extract from ANWR and the gulf would add to the supply for sure, but it's still a drop in the barrel compared to what we import.

So what? None of the sources you mentioned are as feasible as oil. Nuclear power is taboo thanks to the libdems in government.

You say my "assertion that oil supplies are increasing is a rather vague statement," yet when you realize the probability I can validate the argument, you say "spare me the copy/paste, because...I'm not buying it." LOL If that's not a case of denial I don't know what is! Far be it from you to let a few facts get in the way of a good, idiotic rant. :bowrofl:

 

[MonsterMark]

LOL, what a clown.

Here is another clown I guess.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.
Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Here is another clown I guess.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

So a "hint" is now an "overriding proof"?? :bowrofl:

Yes, this CLOWN has been debunked here: http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=271903&postcount=4
*owned*

 

[fossten]

So a "hint" is now an "overriding proof"?? :bowrofl:

Yes, this CLOWN has been debunked here: http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=271903&postcount=4
*owned*

The only person *owned* around here is you. We've shown enough proof that there isn't ANY consensus on global warming, despite your (and your fellow envirochondriacs') attempts to bully everyone into accepting your bullcrap, phoney baloney, doomsday theories.