The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:07 PM GMT on November 25, 2009

Share this Blog
33
+

In 1954, the tobacco industry realized it had a serious problem. Thirteen scientific studies had been published over the preceding five years linking smoking to lung cancer. With the public growing increasingly alarmed about the health effects of smoking, the tobacco industry had to move quickly to protect profits and stem the tide of increasingly worrisome scientific news. Big Tobacco turned to one the world's five largest public relations firms, Hill and Knowlton, to help out. Hill and Knowlton designed a brilliant Public Relations (PR) campaign to convince the public that smoking is not dangerous. They encouraged the tobacco industry to set up their own research organization, the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), which would produce science favorable to the industry, emphasize doubt in all the science linking smoking to lung cancer, and question all independent research unfavorable to the tobacco industry. The CTR did a masterful job at this for decades, significantly delaying and reducing regulation of tobacco products. George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, who is President Obama's nominee to head the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), wrote a meticulously researched 2008 book called, Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. In the book, he wrote: "the industry understood that the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad. Create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion. Throw mud at the anti-smoking research under the assumption that some of it is bound to stick. And buy time, lots of it, in the bargain". The title of Michaels' book comes from a 1969 memo from a tobacco company executive: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy". Hill and Knowlton, on behalf of the tobacco industry, had founded the "Manufactured Doubt" industry.

The Manufactured Doubt industry grows up
As the success of Hill and Knowlton's brilliant Manufactured Doubt campaign became apparent, other industries manufacturing dangerous products hired the firm to design similar PR campaigns. In 1967, Hill and Knowlton helped asbestos industry giant Johns-Manville set up the Asbestos Information Association (AIA). The official-sounding AIA produced "sound science" that questioned the link between asbestos and lung diseases (asbestos currently kills 90,000 people per year, according to the World Health Organization). Manufacturers of lead, vinyl chloride, beryllium, and dioxin products also hired Hill and Knowlton to devise product defense strategies to combat the numerous scientific studies showing that their products were harmful to human health.

By the 1980s, the Manufactured Doubt industry gradually began to be dominated by more specialized "product defense" firms and free enterprise "think tanks". Michaels wrote in Doubt is Their Product about the specialized "product defense" firms: "Having cut their teeth manufacturing uncertainty for Big Tobacco, scientists at ChemRisk, the Weinberg Group, Exponent, Inc., and other consulting firms now battle the regulatory agencies on behalf of the manufacturers of benzene, beryllium, chromium, MTBE, perchlorates, phthalates, and virtually every other toxic chemical in the news today....Public health interests are beside the point. This is science for hire, period, and it is extremely lucrative".

Joining the specialized "product defense" firms were the so-called "think tanks". These front groups received funding from manufacturers of dangerous products and produced "sound science" in support of their funders' products, in the name of free enterprise and free markets. Think tanks such as the George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been active for decades in the Manufactured Doubt business, generating misleading science and false controversy to protect the profits of their clients who manufacture dangerous products.

The ozone hole battle
In 1975, the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) industry realized it had a serious problem. The previous year, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina, chemists at the University of California, Irvine, had published a scientific paper warning that human-generated CFCs could cause serious harm to Earth's protective ozone layer. They warned that the loss of ozone would significantly increase the amount of skin-damaging ultraviolet UV-B light reaching the surface, greatly increasing skin cancer and cataracts. The loss of stratospheric ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone loss had been observed yet, CFCs should be banned, they said. The CFC industry hired Hill and Knowlton to fight back. As is essential in any Manufactured Doubt campaign, Hill and Knowlton found a respected scientist to lead the effort--noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution. In 1975, Scorer went on a month-long PR tour, blasting Molina and Rowland, calling them "doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing that has been accumulated so far is a number of theories." To complement Scorer's efforts, Hill and Knowlton unleashed their standard package of tricks learned from decades of serving the tobacco industry:

- Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.

- Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.

- Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.

- Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.

- Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.

- Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.

- Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.

- Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.

- Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world.

- Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.

- Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.

The campaign worked, and CFC regulations were delayed many years, as Hill and Knowlton boasted in internal documents. The PR firm also took credit for keeping public opinion against buying CFC aerosols to a minimum, and helping change the editorial positions of many newspapers.

In the end, Hill and Knowlton's PR campaign casting doubt on the science of ozone depletion by CFCs turned out to have no merit. Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential environmental disaster.

The battle over global warming
In 1988, the fossil fuel industry realized it had a serious problem. The summer of 1988 had shattered century-old records for heat and drought in the U.S., and NASA's Dr. James Hansen, one of the foremost climate scientists in the world, testified before Congress that human-caused global warming was partially to blame. A swelling number of scientific studies were warning of the threat posed by human-cause climate change, and that consumption of fossil fuels needed to slow down. Naturally, the fossil fuel industry fought back. They launched a massive PR campaign that continues to this day, led by the same think tanks that worked to discredit the ozone depletion theory. The George C. Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been key players in both fights, and there are numerous other think tanks involved. Many of the same experts who had worked hard to discredit the science of the well-established link between cigarette smoke and cancer, the danger the CFCs posed to the ozone layer, and the dangers to health posed by a whole host of toxic chemicals, were now hard at work to discredit the peer-reviewed science supporting human-caused climate change.

As is the case with any Manufactured Doubt campaign, a respected scientist was needed to lead the battle. One such scientist was Dr. Frederick Seitz, a physicist who in the 1960s chaired the organization many feel to be the most prestigious science organization in the world--the National Academy of Sciences. Seitz took a position as a paid consultant for R.J. Reynolds tobacco company beginning in 1978, so was well-versed in the art of Manufactured Doubt. According to the excellent new book, Climate Cover-up, written by desmogblog.com co-founder James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore, over a 10-year period Seitz was responsible for handing out $45 million in tobacco company money to researchers who overwhelmingly failed to link tobacco to anything the least bit negative. Seitz received over $900,000 in compensation for his efforts. He later became a founder of the George C. Marshall Institute, and used his old National Academy of Sciences affiliation to lend credibility to his attacks on global warming science until his death in 2008 at the age of ninety-six. It was Seitz who launched the "Oregon Petition", which contains the signatures of more than 34,000 scientists saying global warming is probably natural and not a crisis. The petition is a regular feature of the Manufactured Doubt campaign against human-caused global warming. The petition lists the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" as its parent organization. According to Climate Cover-up, the Institute is a farm shed situated a couple of miles outside of Cave Junction, OR (population 17,000). The Institute lists seven faculty members, two of whom are dead, and has no ongoing research and no students. It publishes creationist-friendly homeschooler curriculums books on surviving nuclear war. The petition was sent to scientists and was accompanied by a 12-page review printed in exactly the same style used for the prestigious journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A letter from Seitz, who is prominently identified as a former National Academy of Sciences president, accompanied the petition and review. Naturally, many recipients took this to be an official National Academy of Sciences communication, and signed the petition as a result. The National Academy issued a statement in April 2008, clarifying that it had not issued the petition, and that its position on global warming was the opposite. The petition contains no contact information for the signers, making it impossible to verify. In its August 2006 issue, Scientific American presented its attempt to verify the petition. They found that the scientists were almost all people with undergraduate degrees, with no record of research and no expertise in climatology. Scientific American contacted a random sample of 26 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to have a Ph.D. in a climate related science. Eleven said they agreed with the petition, six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember the petition, one had died, and five did not respond.

I could say much more about the Manufactured Doubt campaign being waged against the science of climate change and global warming, but it would fill an entire book. In fact, it has, and I recommend reading Climate Cover-up to learn more. The main author, James Hoggan, owns a Canadian public relations firm, and is intimately familiar with how public relations campaigns work. Suffice to say, the Manufactured Doubt campaign against global warming--funded by the richest corporations in world history--is probably the most extensive and expensive such effort ever. We don't really know how much money the fossil fuel industry has pumped into its Manufactured Doubt campaign, since they don't have to tell us. The website exxonsecrets.org estimates that ExxonMobil alone spent $20 million between 1998 - 2007 on the effort. An analysis done by Desmogblog's Kevin Grandia done in January 2009 found that skeptical global warming content on the web had doubled over the past year. Someone is paying for all that content.

Lobbyists, not skeptical scientists
The history of the Manufactured Doubt industry provides clear lessons in evaluating the validity of their attacks on the published peer-reviewed climate change science. One should trust that the think tanks and allied "skeptic" bloggers such as Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That will give information designed to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry. Yes, there are respected scientists with impressive credentials that these think tanks use to voice their views, but these scientists have given up their objectivity and are now working as lobbyists. I don't like to call them skeptics, because all good scientists should be skeptics. Rather, the think tanks scientists are contrarians, bent on discrediting an accepted body of published scientific research for the benefit of the richest and most powerful corporations in history. Virtually none of the "sound science" they are pushing would ever get published in a serious peer-reviewed scientific journal, and indeed the contrarians are not scientific researchers. They are lobbyists. Many of them seem to believe their tactics are justified, since they are fighting a righteous war against eco-freaks determined to trash the economy.

I will give a small amount of credit to some of their work, however. I have at times picked up some useful information from the contrarians, and have used it to temper my blogs to make them more balanced. For example, I no longer rely just on the National Climatic Data Center for my monthly climate summaries, but instead look at data from NASA and the UK HADCRU source as well. When the Hurricane Season of 2005 brought unfounded claims that global warming was to blame for Hurricane Katrina, and a rather flawed paper by researchers at Georgia Tech showing a large increase in global Category 4 and 5 hurricanes, I found myself agreeing with the contrarians' analysis of the matter, and my blogs at the time reflected this.

The contrarians and the hacked CRU emails
A hacker broke into an email server at the Climate Research Unit of the UK's University of East Anglia last week and posted ten years worth of private email exchanges between leading scientists who've published research linking humans to climate change. Naturally, the contrarians have seized upon this golden opportunity, and are working hard to discredit several of these scientists. You'll hear claims by some contrarians that the emails discovered invalidate the whole theory of human-caused global warming. Well, all I can say is, consider the source. We can trust the contrarians to say whatever is in the best interests of the fossil fuel industry. What I see when I read the various stolen emails and explanations posted at Realclimate.org is scientists acting as scientists--pursuing the truth. I can see no clear evidence that calls into question the scientific validity of the research done by the scientists victimized by the stolen emails. There is no sign of a conspiracy to alter data to fit a pre-conceived ideological view. Rather, I see dedicated scientists attempting to make the truth known in face of what is probably the world's most pervasive and best-funded disinformation campaign against science in history. Even if every bit of mud slung at these scientists were true, the body of scientific work supporting the theory of human-caused climate change--which spans hundreds of thousands of scientific papers written by tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of different scientific disciplines--is too vast to be budged by the flaws in the works of the three or four scientists being subject to the fiercest attacks.

Exaggerated claims by environmentalists
Climate change contrarians regularly complain about false and misleading claims made by ideologically-driven environmental groups regarding climate change, and the heavy lobbying these groups do to influence public opinion. Such efforts confuse the real science and make climate change seem more dangerous than it really is, the contrarians argue. To some extent, these concerns are valid. In particular, environmentalists are too quick to blame any perceived increase in hurricane activity on climate change, when such a link has yet to be proven. While Al Gore's movie mostly had good science, I thought he botched the treatment of hurricanes as well, and the movie looked too much like a campaign ad. In general, environmental groups present better science than the think tanks do, but you're still better off getting your climate information directly from the scientists doing the research, via the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Another good source is Bob Henson's Rough Guide to Climate Change, aimed at people with high-school level science backgrounds.

Let's look at the amount of money being spent on lobbying efforts by the fossil fuel industry compared to environmental groups to see their relative influence. According to Center for Public Integrity, there are currently 2,663 climate change lobbyists working on Capitol Hill. That's five lobbyists for every member of Congress. Climate lobbyists working for major industries outnumber those working for environmental, health, and alternative energy groups by more than seven to one. For the second quarter of 2009, here is a list compiled by the Center for Public Integrity of all the oil, gas, and coal mining groups that spent more than $100,000 on lobbying (this includes all lobbying, not just climate change lobbying):

Chevron $6,485,000
Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
BP America $4,270,000
ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
Shell Oil Company $950,000
Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
Williams Companies $920,000
Flint Hills Resources $820,000
Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
National Mining Association $770,000
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
Devon Energy $695,000
Sunoco $585,000
Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
Peabody Energy $420,000
Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
America's Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
El Paso Corporation $261,000
Spectra Energy $279,000
National Propane Gas Association $242,000
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
Nexen, Inc $230,000
Denbury Resources $200,000
Nisource, Inc $180,000
Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
Tesoro Companies $119,000

Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:

Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500
Nature Conservancy $650,000
Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000
National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000
Sierra Club $120,000
Defenders of Wildlife $120,000
Environmental Defense Fund $100,000

If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects both sets of numbers. The numbers don't even include lobbying money from other industries lobbying against climate change, such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.

Corporate profits vs. corporate social responsibility
I'm sure I've left the impression that I disapprove of what the Manufactured Doubt industry is doing. On the contrary, I believe that for the most part, the corporations involved have little choice under the law but to protect their profits by pursuing Manufactured Doubt campaigns, as long as they are legal. The law in all 50 U.S. states has a provision similar to Maine's section 716, "The directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interest of the corporation and of the shareholders". There is no clause at the end that adds, "...but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public safety, the communities in which the corporation operates, or the dignity of employees". The law makes a company's board of directors legally liable for "breach of fiduciary responsibility" if they knowingly manage a company in a way that reduces profits. Shareholders can and have sued companies for being overly socially responsible, and not paying enough attention to the bottom line. We can reward corporations that are managed in a socially responsible way with our business and give them incentives to act thusly, but there are limits to how far Corporate Socially Responsibility (CSR) can go. For example, car manufacturer Henry Ford was successfully sued by stockholders in 1919 for raising the minimum wage of his workers to $5 per day. The courts declared that, while Ford's humanitarian sentiments about his employees were nice, his business existed to make profits for its stockholders.

So, what is needed is a fundamental change to the laws regarding the purpose of a corporation, or new regulations forcing corporations to limit Manufactured Doubt campaigns. Legislation has been introduced in Minnesota to create a new section of law for an alternative kind of corporation, the SR (Socially Responsible) corporation, but it would be a long uphill battle to get such legislation passed in all 50 states. Increased regulation limiting Manufactured Doubt campaigns is possible to do for drugs and hazardous chemicals--Doubt is Their Product has some excellent suggestions on that, with the first principle being, "use the best science available; do not demand certainty where it does not and cannot exist". However, I think such legislation would be difficult to implement for environmental crises such as global warming. In the end, we're stuck with the current system, forced to make critical decisions affecting all of humanity in the face of the Frankenstein monster our corporate system of law has created--the most vigorous and well-funded disinformation campaign against science ever conducted.

Have a great Thanksgiving, everyone, and I'll be back Monday--the last day of hurricane season--with a review of the hurricane season of 2009.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 1850 - 1800

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37Blog Index

1850. Carol2000
7:21 AM GMT on May 15, 2010
The only side that lies about smoking and health is the anti-smokers. They're guilty of flagrant fraud for ignoring more than 50 studies, which show that HPV is involved in at least a quarter of all non-small cell lung cancers.

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm

All the anti-smokers' studies are based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, which are guaranteed never to find the real cause of anything, EVER. Their only purpose is to cynically exploit the fact that people of lower socioeconomic classes are more likely have been exposed to infections. To swallow this kind of garbage is proof of complete scientific incompetence.

Furthermore, the health fascist charlatans manufacture unanimity by shoveling out our tax dollars to their accomplices. Presumably, they did this with global warming, too, because the henchman who lobbied for the EPA to proclaim that secondhand smoke is a "carcinogen" subsequently founded the Climate Institute.

http://www.smokershistory.com/NCCIA.htm
Member Since: June 4, 2005 Posts: 1 Comments: 1
1849. Russell797
1:56 PM GMT on February 08, 2010
Well, one thing is for certain. There exists a disinformation campaign out there. The dichotomous nature of the debate is such that one side or the other is not telling the truth. Do you really think the big Corporations are not putting forth a full court press in opposition to a science that if true stands to diminish their profitability? Of course they are. They would be fools not to.

By the way, this extends to the health care issue as well. Big oil, big coal and insurance companies against the better public good for the sake of profit.
1848. PATRIOTPREACHER
2:16 AM GMT on January 29, 2010
appoligies, You did not buy the whole lie and actually criticized Al Gore so at least you did not buy in hook line and sinker, just the hook. LOOK in the grand scheme of things GOD made the earth self regulating and self healing
so Thank GOD and move on, and everybody please
stop voting for kneejerk reactionary politicians who are just looking for new ways to tax you.
1847. PATRIOTPREACHER
2:06 AM GMT on January 29, 2010
I can not believe that you call youself a scholar. Al Gore and his crew L I E D !!! get over it allready.

Human caused global warming is a religious point of view , not fact. Because the facts and the data do not bear it out.When the data failed to return what they wanted, they made it up!! Sure there might be an slight increase as happens every 1500 years, last time it brought in a era or great prospeity

you may ask, Why whould they do that? The oldest reason $$$$$$$$$ money $$$$$$$. Grant money, speeking tour money, bogus peace prize money, goverment tax money,etc.
Al Gores personal now tops 100 million dollars. It seems that throwing the world in to a panic pays very well.
No one is selling doubt . It was created by the very people who are pulling this scam.
They just did not count on the American people being so darn smart.
But don't just belive me, unlike the global warming fear mongers I present evidence that is verifiable BTW the earth is currently cooling down in a mini cycle of 50 years or so, now how are you going to scare people.

dare to read this:
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08
1846. Cranberryuplink
2:02 AM GMT on January 24, 2010
Dear Dr. Masters,

To all the above I will offer this a single link. I sincerely hope you find work.

http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=217
Member Since: July 20, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 8
1845. dutchessweather
4:37 PM GMT on January 05, 2010
The debate is over! No need for further discussion! Global temperatures and associated climates have been changing for millions of years, along with fluctuations in global sea level! The latest trend began about 18,000 years ago, when the last ice age ended. This trend has been a warming trend, with rising sea level. There are fluctuations about this general trend; the "Little Ice Age" being one of the more famous ones (along with the "Medieval Warm Period"). Man has little to no affect on global termperature and climate! (and it could be argued that particulate input by man has slightly cooled the planet). Sorry to burst your bubble of importance (those who think man is such hot stuff), but it's time to move on to a new fraud. Fortunately, your scam has been revealed, and you will fail in your attempts to use "man-made global warming" as a tool for personal wealth and global control. All "scientists" involved with the perpetuation of this fraud should be either thrown in jail, or forced to resign from whatever scientific field they are in. Just like journalists who drifted away from reporting the truth, this issue as shown that many scientists are no longer interested in the truth either, and would rather use an issue like this to promote their careers and/or personal political philosophy. I am going to resign from the American Geophysical Union because of their support of this fraud, and I urge any real scientists out there, like myself, to resign from this, and any other organization, that has promoted the fraud.
Member Since: October 3, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 16
1844. DSG2k
5:02 PM GMT on December 01, 2009
Dr. Masters,

Once again you have strayed from your home turf of hurricanes and launched headlong into a political attack. Everyone understands you are a left wing guy, and while some may thus have doubts as to your capabilities regarding hurricanes you at least provide enough information to counterbalance that.

However, you do not need to keep proving your left wing credentials, especially when they expose such illogic (which, again, raises doubts as to your capabilities).

1. You provide a history of "manufactured doubt" focused on tobacco and ozone (others would call it "FUD" (fear, uncertainty, doubt), a la Microsoft), and attempt to tie climate change skepticism to that history.

That is wrong-headed and poisoning the well of discourse regarding global warming. First, tobacco experimentation is repeatable and testable . . . global warming model hocus-pocus is not, because CRU's dirty science involved sloppy models with hard-coded fakery and cherry-picked data sources that they still had to fudge. Worse yet, they refused to share their methods and data with others (which we now know was for a good reason, in their mind, given how utterly atrocious their methods and data were).

As an aside, hurricane modeling is light-years ahead of climate modeling, yet even the newest hurricane models can perform poorly. It is partly a function of insufficient input, and partly a function of our own ignorance. To achieve the same level of anti-scientific foolishness as CRU maintained, hurricane modelers would have to decide in advance where they wanted to say the hurricane went, tweak the model input and/or output accordingly, and then refuse to budge from their position even when the hurricane clearly went the other way. Worse, they would clearly promulgate falsehoods in regards to where past storms went, just to make their current model look that much better! (re: Mann's "Hockey Stick" and the MWP)

You also try to poison the well by claiming the money is on the side of skeptics, yet your figures completely ignore the government funding of climate change research and activities. The Science and Public Policy Institute puts the figure of money spent on climate change at 79 billion . . . all your lobbying amounts combined do not match that. But even if the true government-sponsorship figure is less than one tenth of that, you still won't end up seeing it matched by your evil corporations.

The reason government is involved is simple, but I'm sure you would have difficulty with a point regarding big government trying to feed itself.

Finally, your claims ignore the fact that people like Watts and McIntyre are finding errors with the science, even without the cooperation or transparency of folks like the CRU 'scientists'.

But that's okay. If we wanted to play your game we'd simply note that you're part of a manufactured doubt campaign, trying to use FUD to hide the decline of the global warming myth.

For the record, I reject any religious intrusion into science, be it creationism or the new secular religion of global warming. Ben Stein and Al Gore are two halves of the same Anti-Science Alliance coin.
1843. chrcon1
10:54 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Web sites that provide additional resources exposing the fraud of global warming:

http://www.isthereglobalwarming.com/

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/about-us/

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2008/GlobalWarmingCensored/GlobalWarmingCensored_exe csum.asp

http://www.iceagenow.com/


I am not endorsing everything that is on the above web sites. They are just a sample of the sites and materials that are available that provide information that you need to be careful before buying into what the proponents of global warming claim.
Member Since: June 11, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 5
1842. chrcon1
10:43 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
The hacked emails are just one more reason to doubt the global warming advocates and to oppose any legislation that Congress attempts to pass on this matter.
Member Since: June 11, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 5
1841. stxman
8:01 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
The "manufactured Doubt" post by Dr. Masters is pathetic and embarrassing. Rather address the misdeeds by the AGW proponents, Dr. Masters chooses to launch an ad hominen attack. Problem for him is there's no need to "manufacture" doubt as any truly neutral scientist can tell you that there is plenty of doubt to be had. AGW is a theory. Period. It's not settled science and it's not a fact. There are too many variables to be certain.

There's a great book by Koestler on cosmolgy called "The Sleepwalkers." He describes how "scientists" kept fudging data or coming up with crazy hypothesis in order to "save the appearances" of the Ptolemaic system. This went on for 1500 years. Sounds like the CRU was fudging data to save the appearances of their precious models "proving" AGW. Let's hope this scam doesn't last as long.


1840. AwakeInMaryland
3:36 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting SQUAWK:
NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG==== NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG==== NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG==== NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG==== NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG==== NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG==== NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG==== NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG==== NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG====


THANK G-D!!
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
1839. hurricanejunky
3:35 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting StormChaser81:


If your in a rural area, I believe you. Rural areas temps drop a lot more than the city's


Especially since many of the forecast temps and official weather stations are located in urban areas or TV stations (near or in the city) so paved roads (radiant heat) and other buildings in close proximity contribute to slightly higher temps. We are also much breezier than we used to be in the suburbs/city as well.
Member Since: August 28, 2006 Posts: 6 Comments: 2899
1838. SQUAWK
3:34 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG==== NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG==== NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG==== NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG==== NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG==== NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG==== NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG==== NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG==== NEW BLOG=====NEW BOLG====
Member Since: December 9, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2498
1837. AwakeInMaryland
3:34 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting StormW:


Thanks!

You're welcome. Guess you can't even take Thanksgiving off without being missed!
Look forward to your update,
and to a NEW DR. JEFF BLOG (hint, hint, the sooner the better, Dr. J.)

Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
1836. IKE
3:33 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting hurricanejunky:


I don't have any lakes around me, just a couple small ponds but they're 300-500 ft from my property. The window weather is most welcome!


I'm on lake-front property and there's another lake right across the street. Keeps my minimum temps up.
Member Since: June 9, 2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37860
1835. hurricanejunky
3:31 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting IKE:


I recorded a low this morning of 56...inland Florida panhandle.

There's a PWS about 6 miles from here that showed a low around 45 this morning.

I'm surrounded by 2 lakes. The PWS isn't.


I don't have any lakes around me, just a couple small ponds but they're 300-500 ft from my property. The open window weather is most welcome!
Member Since: August 28, 2006 Posts: 6 Comments: 2899
1833. AwakeInMaryland
3:22 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting StormW:
Hey gang,

Question...I've had some inquiries via private email, and was wondering if someone can clue me in as to why a couple of posts the other day made mention that I would be missed?

TIA!

'morning, StormW,

It was very odd indeed. I don't think I can find the posts, or even explain it very well.

I saw a post, quoting someone else, that said "Too bad about StormW" (that was in the quoted italics.) So the response was, "What happened to StormW?"

I went back to the original post, that had been in italics. The original post said "deleted."

This is just conjecture, but I wonder if someone got you mixed up with Weather456 (did I get the screen name right?) who suffered through the swine flu? or maybe Floodman (surgery)? In any case, the original poster should have clarified, apologized, SOMETHING.

BTW, anyone have any updates on Floodman? I've checked Mrs. Flood's blog (LongStrangeTrip) and haven't seen anything lately. Did they say anything about being offline for Thanksgiving or anything? TIA.
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
1832. IKE
3:16 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting StormChaser81:


If your in a rural area, I believe you. Rural areas temps drop a lot more than the city's


I recorded a low this morning of 56...inland Florida panhandle.

There's a PWS about 6 miles from here that showed a low around 45 this morning.

I'm surrounded by 2 lakes. The PWS isn't.
Member Since: June 9, 2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37860
1831. weathermanwannabe
3:16 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Good Morning Friends............Last day of the season and looks like the most squirley weather for the Florida Panhandle will come from the forecasted non-tropical low/frontal boundry. With El Nino conditions for the Winter season, and concurrent the low position of the southern tier of the jet stream, severe weather events from frontal passages will be an issue for the Gulf States between now and March/April in all probability.
Member Since: August 8, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 9342
1830. StormChaser81
3:12 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting hurricanejunky:


Maybe Fort Myers. I am in N. Ft. Myers which is usually about 2-3 degrees cooler and we're rural so no paved roads and other buildings within 500 ft of the house. I have one other home in sight of mine. Gets a few degrees colder than the forecasts for Ft. Myers. We were down to 39 on Saturday morning. Davis makes a pretty reliable and accurate weather station so I'm pretty sure it was correct.


If your in a rural area, I believe you. Rural areas temps drop a lot more than the city's
Member Since: August 11, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2315
1828. AwakeInMaryland
3:10 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Any of the WU Florida posters know this fella'?
Hear he works like a dog to assist his customers!

Dog in a BP shirt greets customers at Clearwater store
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
1827. hurricanejunky
3:08 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting StormChaser81:


I pretty sure the lowest Ft. Myers got to is 54 degrees.


Maybe Fort Myers. I am in N. Ft. Myers which is usually about 2-3 degrees cooler and we're rural so no paved roads and other buildings within 500 ft of the house. I have one other home in sight of mine. Gets a few degrees colder than the forecasts for Ft. Myers. We were down to 39 on Saturday morning. Davis makes a pretty reliable and accurate weather station so I'm pretty sure it was correct.
Member Since: August 28, 2006 Posts: 6 Comments: 2899
1826. Snowmog
3:07 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
1816: Here in Tiverton, RI we got pretty strong winds Saturday! Our friend was driving his xmas tree home that day and his car nearly took off! Needless to say his plan of putting up the xmas lights on the house also did not go well :0)
Member Since: February 1, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 143
1825. hurricanejunky
3:06 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting TampaSpin:


That can't be correct its 64 in Tampa now


Right now in Tampa it's 64. I am not at home now so I don't know what the temp currently is there. When I got up this morning around 6:15am my Davis Vantage Pro2 showed 49 on the display. I can take a photo of the screen that shows the hi/low for today if you like...
Member Since: August 28, 2006 Posts: 6 Comments: 2899
1824. hurricanejunky
3:04 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting weatherneophyte:
Quoting Patrap:
The warming is occurring,Fact.

This is in fact, NOT a fact. Just stating that something is a fact does NOT make it a fact. For every reputable scientist that states that global warming is occurring, there is another (though muzzled by the MSM) reputable scientist that makes an opposite claim. I have no problem with not polluting the earth. Just don't tax me huge amounts for a still unproven issue. Is it a coincidence that most if not all of those who are running around screaming global warming are making money from it, either through grants for research or by selling bogus "carbon credits"? Whatever the heck those are.


No, I'd rather you be taxed for polluting as all of us are guilty of in one form or another. Shouldn't we all pitch in for the cleanup? I don't mind doing my part. I think we owe Mother Earth that much, don't you?
Hopefully you don't fall into the group of people who live in LA-LA land thinking that we can cut taxes to nothing (because tax cuts are all that matters) and infrastructure and other problems get resolved by osmosis.
Member Since: August 28, 2006 Posts: 6 Comments: 2899
1823. StormChaser81
2:57 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting TampaSpin:


That can't be correct its 64 in Tampa now


I pretty sure the lowest Ft. Myers got to is 54 degrees.
Member Since: August 11, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2315
1822. NEwxguy
2:57 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
49 in N.Ft. Myers,its 52 here just west of Boston.
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 886 Comments: 15950
1821. TampaSpin
2:52 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting hurricanejunky:


Wow, we were actually colder this morning at 49 here in N. Ft Myers, FL. Strange...usually North Fl is much colder.


That can't be correct its 64 in Tampa now
Member Since: September 2, 2007 Posts: 179 Comments: 20448
1820. weatherneophyte
2:52 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting Patrap:
The warming is occurring,Fact.

This is in fact, NOT a fact. Just stating that something is a fact does NOT make it a fact. For every reputable scientist that states that global warming is occurring, there is another (though muzzled by the MSM) reputable scientist that makes an opposite claim. I have no problem with not polluting the earth. Just don't tax me huge amounts for a still unproven issue. Is it a coincidence that most if not all of those who are running around screaming global warming are making money from it, either through grants for research or by selling bogus "carbon credits"? Whatever the heck those are.
Member Since: September 28, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 37
1819. hurricanejunky
2:49 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting IKE:


LOL....it's nice out now....just took my black poodle out for a morning smell and sniff. Partly cloudy and 56.7 degrees.


Wow, we were actually colder this morning at 49 here in N. Ft Myers, FL. Strange...usually North Fl is much colder.
Member Since: August 28, 2006 Posts: 6 Comments: 2899
1818. AwakeInMaryland
2:42 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Excerpts from the weekend's National Situation Update (just got posted, but still relevant.)

U.S. Hazards Assessment

Valid Monday, Nov 30, 2009 - Friday, Dec 11, 2009
Synopsis: A strong upper-level low pressure system is forecast to track eastward across northern Mexico into southern Texas early in the week. This may result in a wintry mix of rain and snow in southern areas not accustom to wintry weather, especially this time of the year. Farther east, a developing low pressure system in the Gulf of Mexico is forecast to travel northeastward across the Southeast, bringing heavy rain and the threat of flooding to the Gulf Coast. In Alaska, two or more major Pacific storm systems are expected to strike the state with high winds, heavy snow and rain.

Hazards
• Nov 30 – Dec 1 and Dec 4 – 6: High winds and waves across the Aleutians, western and southern Alaska
• Nov 30 - Dec 1: A wintry mix with heavy mountain snows from southern New Mexico into western Texas.
• Nov 30 - Dec 2: Heavy rain and flooding across the Gulf Coast region.
• Ongoing river flooding in Illinois and Louisiana.
• Nov 30: Critical fire conditions in southern California.(NWS Climate Prediction Center www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/predictions/threats/threats.php )

Tropical Weather Outlook

Atlantic
Tropical cyclone formation is not expected during the next 48 hours
Eastern Pacific
Tropical cyclone formation is not expected during the next 48 hours
Central Pacific
No tropical cyclones are expected through Sunday afternoon
Western Pacific
No activity threatening United States territories. (NOAA, HPC, National Hurricane Center, Central Pacific Hurricane Center and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center)

Preliminary Damage Assessments

Severe Weather PDAs
Storms created by Nor’easter November 13-14, 2009:
North Carolina:
PA PDAs continue in three counties
Storms created by Tropical Storm Ida on October 28, 2009:
Louisiana:
IA and PA PDAs continue in three parishes
Alabama:
PA PDAs continue in two counties
Winter Storms on November 16, 2009:
Nebraska:
PA PDAs continue for seven counties in Nebraska
Kansas:
PA PDAs for Kansas scheduled to begin on December 1 for 17 counties

Wildfire Update
National Preparedness Level: 1
National Fire Activity as of Friday, November 27, 2009
Initial attack activity: Light (89 new fires)
New large fires: 3
Large fires contained: 3
Uncontained large fires: 0
States affected: KY & MN(NIFC)

Disaster Declaration Activity

On November 25, 2009 the Governor of New Jersey requested a Major Disaster Declaration as a result of Severe Storms and Flooding (remnants of Tropical Storm Ida and coastal Nor’easter) that occurred November 11-15, 2009. The request is for Public Assistance for three counties and Hazard Mitigation statewide.

Last Modified: Monday, 30-Nov-2009 06:02:06 EST
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
1817. hurricanejunky
2:15 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting Patrap:
The warming is occurring,Fact.

What all the fuss is about is the root cause.
And the data..the data..the Data..is empirical.

The Planet has no ears and could care less as to changing Human minds.


Climate gate?

Sounds clicky..but in reality,its a timing issue that was a deliberate act,to throw a Smoke screen up before Copenhagen.

Only a fool ducks his head in the sand as to what they dont agree with...or fail to grasp due to the enormity of the Forces involved. They are many.
But from the Forest Dying in Colorado,,to the Glacial Melt in our own National Park,..I sincerely hope we get the next 20 years right as to all the rhetoric.
Cuz the consequences downstream..dont give a rats rear as to what WE think on the issue,on either side.

Folks pat posts on the back on both sides of this heavily debated issue.

But thats Psych 101..we all want to be believed.
And at the end of this day and tomorrow, the Toxins continue into the Home Planets Atmosphere,unabated..24/7/365.

Lets Hope the Co2 Fairies and Methane Pixies wave their Collective Harry Potter Wands well tonight.
Another day of wunderful Fossil Fuel Burning and Pollution is ready to be"poofed".






Now THIS is an excellent post. Let's stop polluting, bottom line. Why isn't that a common want among all human beings? You wouldn't dump nuclear waste in your own backyard or let your car's exhaust pipe supply the air into your home so why would you want to pollute the air outside? All things being equal, I think eliminating pollution is a good thing, can we all at least agree on that?
Member Since: August 28, 2006 Posts: 6 Comments: 2899
1816. AwakeInMaryland
2:13 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting lawntonlookers:
I don't know if this has been posted before, but becasue of a poor catch of the fall chum salmon run on the Yukon River, many sled dogs in the Yokon River area facing starbation.

Link to an article in the Fairbanks, AK paper.

SLED DOG FOOD SHORTAGE


Thank you for posting. There's a couple folks around here with rescue Husky dogs. A lot of us have rescue dogs across several neighborhoods. I'll see if anyone has more info on this or any ideas, maybe call the writer of the article. Pls. let us know if you hear anything more.

And good morning, all. TWC said Rhode Island got some bad weather, wind I think. Anyone from New England on, or see/hear anything?
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
1815. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
1:59 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
iam gone bb at lunch
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54864
1814. Orcasystems
1:58 PM GMT on November 30, 2009


AOI

AOI

AOI

AOI

Humor in Comments
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26511
1813. lawntonlookers
1:58 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
I don't know if this has been posted before, but becasue of a poor catch of the fall chum salmon run on the Yukon River, many sled dogs in the Yokon River area facing starbation.

Link to an article in the Fairbanks, AK paper.

SLED DOG FOOD SHORTAGE
Member Since: March 22, 2006 Posts: 9 Comments: 1570
1812. PensacolaDoug
1:50 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
the entire basin got lucky this year and we all know that


No doubt we got lucky this season.,
Don't mistake me for someone who wants to see a
real storm here but I woulda liked to have seen a few gusts in 50 range. We can handle that just fine.
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 595
1811. IKE
1:49 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting PensacolaDoug:
for Ida they cancelled school for two days. It rained about an inch or so and wind blew 15 mph!


Same here. They closed the courthouse at noon Monday and all day Tuesday for an afternoon thundershower.
Member Since: June 9, 2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37860
1810. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
1:49 PM GMT on November 30, 2009


STORM "BOB"
MARK
29N/90W


lol
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54864
1809. AwakeInMaryland
1:45 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
1797. AstroHurricane001 1:01 PM GMT on November 30, 2009

Quoting AwakeInMaryland:
ROFL. My husband has a selective-hearing device in his cave. (night again, 3rd time's for real.)

That sounds like a denial technique. Shut out the information and you won't hear it. But that doesn't make it not there.


But the husband keeps trying, denial works very well for him a great deal of the time, except when it doesn't, e.g., --"your son"--"your grandkids"--"your dogs" (while the dogs vie over the spot next to him on the couch.)
Was it Amy Pohler who used to do the skits, as a hyper little girl with her step-dad "Rick"? I couldn't stop laughing while hubby groaned and rolled his eyes.
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
1808. PensacolaDoug
1:44 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Lets name this one!

Hmmm..... how bout

Winter-Low "Bob"... since this is the second one recently.


OMG! WL BOB is Commin'!

Hide the women and children!
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 595
1807. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
1:41 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
the entire basin got lucky this year and we all know that
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54864
1806. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
1:39 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting PensacolaDoug:
for Ida they cancelled school for two days. It rained about an inch or so and wind blew 15 mph!
it had a name and recorded history
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54864
1805. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
1:36 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting IKE:


You ran em all off...lol.

I'm getting ready for work.
iam ready for work to just finished up now gettin 2nd cup coffee then out the door at 9
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54864
1804. PensacolaDoug
1:36 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
for Ida they cancelled school for two days. It rained about an inch or so and wind blew 15 mph!
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 595
1803. IKE
1:30 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting PensacolaDoug:
This system has the potential to be much worse on the north central Gom than either Ida or Claudette, (both were darn near non-events) yet absolutely no mention of it in the Penscala Mullet Wrapper this mornng. I guess weather systems dont get no love from the media unless thay have a name attached to them.
Highest wind gust at my house (and I live right by the water) during IDA was 22 MPH. I'm curious to see how this low measures up. I got a new weather station set up here compliments of Cyclone Oz. I'll post the stats on this system periodically during the event.


That's exactly what it is...it will have no-name, so they don't talk about it.

Nothing on the NW FL. Daily News website either.

And I agree...Claudette and Ida were non-events here too.
Member Since: June 9, 2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37860
1802. PensacolaDoug
1:27 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
what happen i kill the blog or what



I thought only I did that!
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 595
1801. PensacolaDoug
1:26 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
This system has the potential to be much worse on the north central Gom than either Ida or Claudette, (both were darn near non-events) yet absolutely no mention of it in the Pensacola Mullet Wrapper this mornng. I guess weather systems dont get no love from the media unless thay have a name attached to them.
Highest wind gust at my house (and I live right by the water) during IDA was 22 MPH. I'm curious to see how this low measures up. I got a new weather station set up here compliments of Cyclone Oz. I'll post the stats on this system periodically during the event.
Member Since: July 25, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 595
1800. IKE
1:20 PM GMT on November 30, 2009
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
where did everyone go


You ran em all off...lol.

I'm getting ready for work.
Member Since: June 9, 2005 Posts: 23 Comments: 37860

Viewing: 1850 - 1800

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.