Dr. Judith Curry is an established scientist with impeccable credentials who has been creating a bit of a stir in the blogosphere recently. She is Chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, was a member of NASA's Climate Research Committee for three years and NOAA's Climate Working Group. Well, heck, her resume is here--and it's impressive.
She's making waves because she's talking about the pernicious effects of the 'tribalism' she finds in discussions regarding climate change, the 'us' vs. 'them' quality that makes simple discussion of seemingly innocuous issues fall apart before they even start. Dr. Curry conducted a rather lengthy interview with Keith Kloor over at Collide-a-Scape, with the three parts being here, here and here. It's stimulated a lot of discussion and I have my own questions regarding this, which will all be in part 2 of this interview. Readers who visit other climate related weblogs will have seen the discussion continued on many blogs, both by bloggers and their commenters. The fact that a well-respected climate scientist is even willing to talk to skeptics is, believe it or not, controversial in some quarters, due to the very tribalism Dr. Curry is criticizing.
For now, given the topicality of the subject, I thought for part 1 we would focus on the decision by the Virginial Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, to launch an investigation into the University of Virginia's funding process regarding Michael Mann's research during his tenure there (Mann has since moved on to Penn State). Dr. Mann, as most of you know, is the scientist who built the Hockey Stick which graced the cover of the IPCC's AR4 and has been the subject of much controversy and several investigations (and two parody YouTube videos) ever since.
Ken Cuccinelli, Attorney General for the state and Commonwealth of Virginia, seems like a throwback to an earlier era where ambitious politicians used the office for generating publicity and controversy as they cultivated hopes for higher offices. From a distance, his actions seem almost a caricature of the ambitious AG one finds in films--and never as the good guy. Perhaps Virginians have a different opinion.
Examiner: First, thanks very much for agreeing to do this interview. The Virginia Attorney General has announced an investigation into the grants process at the University of Virginia specifically regarding the research conducted by paleoclimatologist Michael Mann during his tenure there. What is your reaction to this as a scientist? As an American? As someone who is getting dragged into the very strange battle over climate change?
Dr. Curry: Well I find this very disturbing. Without some sort of credible cause to conduct this investigation, it comes across as a witch hunt. This investigation is not only wrong and sets a very scary precedent in terms of academic freedom, but it is a bad strategy it will have the unintended effect of confirming Mann’s status as a “victim.” Mann’s arch-antagonist Steve McIntyre has condemned Cuccinelli’s actions. http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/02/cuccinelli-v-mann/.
It is difficult to imagine that anyone at a university or anyone who understands science could find this investigation defensible or appropriate. This investigation reminds us why tenure is important for university faculty members.
This investigation appears to be a fishing expedition, unless there is some issue of inappropriate expenditure of Virginia State funds. So far, the main allegations with regards to Mann's research are that he has been overly defensive of some of his papers that will probably not survive the test of time and showing some poor judgment, which shouldn't be a subject that the Virginia AG is investigating.
Exactly what Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli hopes to accomplish by this isn’t clear. So why is Cuccinelli going after Mann? Surely there have been other papers published by University of Virginia faculty members that have been incorrect or haven’t stood the test of time. So why focus on Mann? Its because of the “Hockey Stick,” and its iconic status in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (featured very prominently by Sir John Houghton) and also in Al Gore’s movie and book “An Inconvenient Truth.”
And exactly why should we blame Mann for this? Yes, the Hockey Stick comes from his two papers published in 1998/1999. His institution (U. Mass) issued press releases on these papers, which ensured that they received a lot of attention. Yes, Mann was a Lead Author on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). But this doesn’t explain how a young scientist that received his Ph.D. in 1998 came to be so influential in the outcome of the IPCC TAR.
Most (if not nearly all) of the lead authors for the IPCC Assessment Reports (particularly for WG1) seem to be senior scientists with a long record of scientific accomplishments and extensive experience in serving on national and international science steering committees that review and develop scientific programs. So how did such a young and relatively inexperienced scientist who had just received his Ph.D. become a lead author for the IPCC TAR? Who in the U.S. nominated him? Why did the IPCC select Mann (a recent Ph.D recipient) from the very large numbers of international nominees? I hope that someone will ask these questions, and to start I would like to hear what Sir John Houghton has to say about this.
Well, here is my hypothesis on this. The IPCC leaders were looking for something new and attention grabbing for the TAR and the hockey stick seemed to fit the bill. A paper that used a new methodology and overturned previous conceptions would normally require additional investigations and replications before confidence could be established. So the most expedient way to insure that the hockey stick survived the assessment process was to make Mann a lead author: an ambitious but inexperienced scientist. Exactly how the hockey stick survived the assessment process is unknown to me; I suspect that John Christy (another lead author on the same IPCC chapter) has an interesting story to tell about this.
The IAC investigation of the IPCC has commenced. The IAC is comprised of a very esteemed list of scientists. I would also like to see a parallel investigation comprised of legal types (Inspector Generals), who I think would be more likely to get to the bottom of what has gone wrong with the IPCC and make useful suggestions for tightening up the IPCC procedures.
We need the IPCC to be an honest broker in assessing climate science. Making Mike Mann a symbol of what is wrong with the IPCC is analogous to dealing with the symptom and not the underlying disease. And in the end, it may turn out that he himself is a victim of what is wrong with the IPCC."
Stay tuned for Part 2.
Comments
I think every byte spent on defending Mann is a wasted bit of bandwidth.
It is time to get to facts.
There are no implications on academic freedom in this inquiry.
Unless academic freedom means promoting and protecting corrupt work from scrutiny?
"Stay tuned for Part 2."
No, it's ok, have read enough. Defending Mann is indefensible. Fraudulent science is now big business.
Hi Hunter, I don't have the impression that Cuccinelli is actually looking for facts--I think a rope and a tree is what he wants. If we don't defend Mann now then we will look rather pathetic when we're in the sights of some AGW official telling us the science is settled and we need to shut up. Goose, gander, sauce...
I think McCarthy is a better analogy than the Salem Witch trials. Except now that I've said it, half a dozen people are sure to jump out of the woodwork claiming Joe was right all along.
I would like to point out that what the VA AG has explicitly requested is “...data and other materials that Dr. Mann presented in seeking awards/grants funded, in whole or in part by the Commonwealth of Virginia...“. There is no explicit request for the papers that resulted from the research that was funded.
Dr. Curry states that “Mann’s research has been pored over with a fine-toothed comb for the past decade.”, which is true, but the AG doesn't intend to analyze Mann's research results, just the manner in which Mann obtained the funding for these five grants. Were the grant proposals pored over with a fine-toothed comb? Does anyone know if these are available online anywhere?
It seems to me that this may be more an investigation into the distribution of state-funded grant monies than of Mann himself. Mann may be just a convenient scapegoat.
Dr Curry has presented a very convincing analysis of how Mann - at that early point in his career - became a lead author and a very prominent climatologist. That is: it was all political, not due to merit, because the hockey stick fullfilled a political need. Never mind that the hockey stick were incredibly sloppy.
Isn't the above - alone - proof that there is something very sick with the whole of climate science? Shouldn't most of the community see Mann as a sad joke, rather than take him seriously?
I think the reason that Mann is such a target is his incredible arrogance and continuing defense of the hockey stick in spite of the revelations about the cherry picking of isolated pine data, the faulty use of statistics cited by the Wegman Report, M and M and the full NAS Report as well as the observations by Jones, Esper and Briffa that the Medieval Warm Period was real and probably as warm or warmer than the present warming. This man is acting more like a slick con caught with his hands on the loot than a believable scientist. At least Jones had the grace to admit his real opinions and errors. The only court case I want to see is one that puts the notion of catastrophic AGW on trial with equal representation from qualified scientists on both sides and an unbiased "jury". It would also help if one of the ground rules is that climate models are hypothesis, not evidence.
Tom,
A simple question,:
What is this "us-versus-them"? I presume 'us' refers to the climate scientists. Who are the 'them'? The ragtag bunch of scrawny skeptics who post in blogs? There is no 'them' in this debate. The skeptics are a minuscule inconsequential lot whose main contribution has been to clean up the mess created by the scientists, and pretend at playing conscience.
Climate scientists have everything - money (grants), power, influence. They need the moral approval of the skeptics too? Is there no end to the greed of climatology?
Tom,
While I understand and agree that witch hunts- the contrived search for arbitrary victims regardless of facts- is a bad thing.
How can investigating Mann by an AG whose education includes a Mechanical Engineering degree and whose job is to, among other things, review the expenditure of state funds, possibly meet that definition?
And by the way- skeptics, even very mild and honorable ones like you, have been the target of real witch hunts by AGW promoters and true believers for years.
If the investigation of Mann's compliance with established law turns into a real witch hunt, I will be glad to condemn it.
If the investigation turns up wrong doing by Mann, will you still condemn it?
Hunter, in my open letter to Cuccinelli (which I sent to him by email--and I got a response saying they wouldn't comment) I asked him to produce any kind of reason why they had chosen Michael Mann's work to investigate. Did anyone make an allegation? Was there some kind of action/inaction that prompted this?
If there had been, I'm sure he would have mentioned it. As he still hasn't, I'm assuming he's picking on Mann because of the politics. If he proves me wrong--if he produces a whistleblower that saw Mann pocketing grant money--I'll apologise for weeks on end--it'll replace my two-bit plugs for my book. But I doubt if I'll have to...
Climatologists have spent a lot of time fighting their way into the political kitchen. Now it seems they don't like the heat in there. It's questionable whether Mann ever was a 'scientist' or whether his activities have been more in line with those of an advocate and poltical operative.
I don't buy the 'sauce for the goose' argument. This is now a political struggle between those who wish to suppress dissent, spread fear, acquire all resources to themselves, and introduce deceptive, oppressive and unworkable legislation to achieve the unachievable (the AGW side); and those who believe in accountability, democracy, free speech, and the scientific method.
I honor Dr Curry's attempts to create a middle ground, but as has been pointed out before - she pretty much stands alone. The rest of climatology is very comfortable with their privileged position, standing tall on a heap of junk science.
Unfortunately, scientists tend not to understand law. The Fraud Against Taxpayers Act is the law under which Mann is being investigated. Mann is not in danger of losing his liberty. However, if he fraudulently reported or failed to report his research, then he could be responsible to return monies to the Commonwealth of Virginia. We already know about Mann failing to report the failed verification statistic on the Hockey Stick, but that act is outside the jurisdiction of Virginia since it was not funded by Virginia. It appears the AG of VA is wondering if Mann pulled any similar shenanigans with VA money.
Some people may claim this is a fishing expedition (which means the AG does not have probable cause to start the investigation), but I'm not sure that is true. Usually, when the court is shown bad behavior in one instance they will often let prosecutors the chance to keep looking. If Mann is innocent, he has nothing to worry about. If he is guilty, he does.
Tom,
I can understand the many concerns on both sides of this issue, but I don't yet understand the basis for you comment below:
"Hi Hunter, I don't have the impression that Cuccinelli is actually looking for facts--I think a rope and a tree is what he wants."
I admit that I have not closely followed all the arguments on this issue, and I may have missed some of the Cuccinelli comments. What facts lead you to this impression? If the facts reveal your comment to be accurate, I would agree 100% that the investigation is a witch hunt.
Another question comes to mind. Were the "Damning e-mails" written (or destroyed?)after Mann relocated to Penn State which would impact the scope of the investigation. (assume you know)
I have to admit that it is difficult for me to believe that the hockey stick construction is just an honest error.
If the investigation turnout to be another "Mike Nifong" investigation one would hope the AG would experience the same fate as Nifong.
Suzanne said, "I think the reason that Mann is such a target is his incredible arrogance and continuing defense of the hockey stick".
In a way, Mann has no other choice. Tom Fuller said it in is book - "Mann is his hockey stick" - a point futher elaborated here by Dr Curry. Without the hockey stick, Mann becomes nothing - or, rather, he stands revealed as the nothing he really is. From hero to zero. That's why he can't make - even to himself - the slightest concession that the hockey stick's critics might have a point.
Tom Fuller @ 10:46. Please reread this comment. It is senseless.
First of all, the response was no comment. You make much more of this 'no comment' than you should. On what basis do you claim that if the 'witchhunt' were not about politics then they surely would have noted that? On no basis.
Secondly, of course this is about the hockey stick. It is unfortunate that this whole controversy has devolved into a left/right ideological war, but that is what happens when one side leaves the realm of reality and the other insists on dwelling in the real world.
As I explained to Steve McIntyre, those in the political field attempting to address this massive policy/science trainwreck need our constructive criticism, not our snark about witch hunts. There are real and really evil characters out there to be found in this mess and the politicians on the side of reality need help in figuring out how this happened, and how to prevent it happening again.
=====================
Skepticism is fine -however the few minor mistakes made by the IPCC- dwarf the huge and highly paid media campaign of the Climate change deniers- everyone from the US Chamber of Commerce to the Petroleum Industry and even the Health Insurers.
It seems the IPCC is a far lessor of the two evils here. The skeptics need to come up with honest data and real facts-not information that is distorted by the highly funded special interests with a very defined agenda.
Peter, I suspect you are not evil, just stupid. A useful idiot. Look at the funding supporting the AGW meme, and compare it with that supporting skeptics. It is a 4,000 to 1 ratio, so yes, let's take up your suggestion and follow the money. For starters, what is the source of Gore's $300 million ad campaign? He claimed it was from 'anonymous and internet' donors, a reply which even Andy Revkin thought was horse patootie.
And for theory from the skeptic side, see Lindzen, Choi, and now Spencer's new book about this 'Climate Blunder'. The IPCC and the alarmists have the climate's sensitivity to CO2 wrong, and won't admit it, preferring to appeal to the ignorance of 'useful' citizens like yourself.
=================
Tom, I appreciate your position.
It is typical and completely professional for investigators to avoid tipping their hand in an investigation.
Keep your powder dry- you may be right. But keep your recipe for crow handy as well.
Let us see. She works for NASA, whose data was so bad they even admitted it. Little or no credibility in my book. Many of them are circling the wagons even though the battle is over. Including this blog.
First, thanks Dr. Curry for entering the arena and trying to bring enlightenment to the whole climate wars mess, not just the Mann investigation.
Outside of the US there seems to be a slight effort towards understanding, such as in this 7-part piece in Der Spiegel, summarized by P. Gosselin.
//pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/der-spiegels-7-part-story-science-scandal-the-heated-climate-war/
What we could use is a little more transparency from the American Petroleum Institute and their lobbying campaign.
The New York Times ran an article about the American Petroleum Institute in April of 1998. It outlines a very specific and detailed plan by oil and gas industry representatives to invest millions of dollars in an effort to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol and discredit the scientific consensus opinion that greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm.
The draft plan, titled “Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan,” concedes that opposition to the protocol is not shared by the public or a vast majority of scientists worldwide. “There has been little, if any, public resistance or pressure applied to Congress to reject the treaty, except by those ‘inside the Beltway’ with vested interests,” it notes.
Read: Opinions that Matter:
Harryhammer's Blog
Harry, you are so last century. Look at the funding this century.
Naomi Oreskes is such a fool. How did she even persuade herself, let alone all the useful idiots?
======================
Harry,
Although rarely mentioned by the media: When Clinton was president the US Senate voted 95-0 rejecting the concept that the US sign the Kyoto treaty because it was flawed.
Strange, Kyoto was dropped by the Media until Bush became President and it was then used by the politicians (who voted against it) as a political tool against Bush who shared the opinion of the 95 Senators. With 95 Senators against it, only the NYT could blame Kyoto failure on Bush and the oil Companies.
Kim
I am not a fool-or a useful idiot- thanks for the condescending insults -say much about your ability to look at facts.
The biggest climate change deniers have the most to loose -the Petroleum companies with their crusaders- 'Drill Baby Drill'
and the huge mega amount of money being paid out by the petroleum and utility companies- the US Chamber of Commerce and the extremist far right.
The planet is warming at an alarming rate- in the end the calamity that we suffer will be caused by those seeking NO REFORM and to Maintain the status quo. Trouble is when the junk hits the fan- there will be place for many of us to escape to- and the time is not far away.
I wonder how much the US and worldwide Petroleum industry spends to deny climate change--and how much the peddlers of 'Junk Science' and their crooked scientists spend or gain.
Interesting.
I do know that in Connecticut the average winter temperature is 4 degrees warmer then 40 years ago- I do know we have a growing and thriving wine industry here- since many vines that where not hardy in 1970 now do well here.
I do know that I am able to grow in may garden certain sub tropical palms today that could not be grown in 1970.
I do know the UDSA zone 7 is creeping north about 2 miles a year from the Connecticut shoreline. I also can now grow now southern magnolia and Giant sequoia with no problems.
I do know that April 2010 was the warmest on record at the University of Connecticut since 1889.
The current Co2-Kim as recorded at Mauna Loa Observatory in HI March 2010 was 391 ppm. The highest in carbon and ice records in over 100,000 years.
Curry makes an intersting observation. Mann was 29-31 when he decided to ignore the bulk of paleoclimatology and rewrite the history of the earth's temperature. I know climatologists who were furious. He was not a popular man. So why wasn't he slapped down and how did he end up with such a prominent position in writing the IPCC report? It was most likely politics and not science.
The investigation is just going to turn AGW into a bigger wedge issue. As several here have said, Mann gets to play the martyr. An attack by someone like Cuccinelli will just improve his image in the eyes of people who are just casually following the debate.
Neither Mann nor Cuccinelli (or Massey and Hansen) benefit from an intelligent debate. All either can do is rally their base.
Peter, peter, peter...
You are late to the game, my friend and using arguments that will backfire on you. Wanna see?
1. Please define for me (with references if you please) what "the huge and highly paid media campaign of the Climate change deniers- everyone from the US Chamber of Commerce to the Petroleum Industry and even the Health Insurers" is. How much money are we talking about? Which companies exactly, and what exactly did they do? I have yet to see a "skeptical" commercial in TV... yet have seen NUMEROUS pro-AGW commercials.
2. "in Connecticut the average winter temperature is 4 degrees warmer then 40 years ago"- As your friends on the Warmalist side are SO FOND of pointing out, this is an example weather NOT CLIMATE therefore, it is proof of nothing.
3. "I do know we have a growing and thriving wine industry here- since many vines that where not hardy in 1970 now do well here"- Anecdotal and circumstantial. GE and breeding will produce weather resistant strains.
Doc Doc Doc
Oil conglomerate 'secretly funds climate change deniers'
An oil conglomerate has allegedly spent nearly £16.5 million ($25 million) on campaigns to discredit climate change and clean energy policies, according to a new report.
Mar 29, 2010
WASHINGTON — Koch Industries, a huge privately-owned US company dominated by oil and chemical interests, is plowing millions of dollars into campaigns to discredit climate science and clean energy policies, a report alleged Tuesday.
Between 2005 and 2008, the Kansas-based conglomerate that "most Americans have never heard of" spent nearly 25 million dollars to fund "organizations of the 'climate denial machine,'" environmental protection group Greenpeace said in the report.
Do you live in Connecticut? I have for all of my life. You offer nothing in rebuttal-
Koch Industries also is well known for its long-time sponsorship of free-market foundations and causes
The Koch brothers operate the Koch Family Foundations, a major source of funding for libertarian and sometimes conservative political causes in the United States, including think tanks such as the Cato Institute.
Koch Industries founded Americans for Prosperity, formed as a successor to Citizens for a Sound Economy. Fred Koch co-founded the John Birch Society, though neither of his sons is a member or supporter of the organization. His sons, Charles and David, did not follow in their father's arch-conservative views but instead converted to libertarianism under the influence of Robert LeFevre, and in the mid-1970s started to fund a network of libertarian organizations including the United States Libertarian Party, for which David ran as the vice presidential nominee in 1980. The Kochs withdrew their financial support of the Libertarian Party after an acrimonious 1983
The Republican War on Science is a book by Chris C. Mooney, an American journalist who focuses on the politics of science policy. In the book, Mooney discusses the Republican Party leadership's stance on science, and in particular that of the George W. Bush administration, with regard to issues such as climate change, the evolution/creation controversy, bioethics, alternative medicine, pollution, separation of church and state, and the government funding of education, research, and environmental protection. The book argues that the administration regularly distorted or suppressed scientific research to further its own political aims
pete's logic cont..
4. "I do know that April 2010 was the warmest on record at the University of Connecticut since 1889."- Maybe that's because we are climbibg out of the "little Ice Age" that ended around 1850. Also, you got your facts wrong. It's the *SECOND* warmest April since 1998. Sorry to burst your bubble. (ref://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/rss-2nd-warmest-april/)
5. "The current Co2-Kim as recorded at Mauna Loa Observatory in HI March 2010 was 391 ppm. The highest in carbon and ice records in over 100,000 years."- WOW, that's alot! oops... wait, no it isn't. Actually we are in a CO2 deficit geologically speaking. (ref:www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif)
(ref:raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/carbon_dioxide_time.jpg)
(ref:earthintime.com/phartempco2.jpg)
(ref:2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SoxiDu0taDI/AAAAAAAABFI/Z2yuZCWtzvc/s1600-h/Geocarb+III-Mine-03.jpg)
Doc
Peter,
What you posted isn't a reference... but I'm sure I can figure out where you got it from... lessee, it mentions Koch... GREENPEACE! Now, let's check to see...
Doc
I like it. Michael Mann: useful idiot... suicide bomber for the more elderly in the cause.
As far as the hockey stick goes, I don't understand why people dignify it as science. One doesn't need a paleoclimate study to further bolster the priciples of physical chemistry and characteristics of CO2. This is established science. The hockey stick seems more like an engineering study to me.
Well, whattaya know... Pete IS quoting from a Greenpeace report. Now, applying Rule #2 from the "How to talk to a Skeptic" guide...
Using Greenpeace as a credible source isn't allowed. They are "fruit from the poison tree". Meaning, they are political activitsts who recieve funding to promote a political agenda. Therefore all "reports", and "scientific papers" produced by them are suspect.
Sorry, boo hoo. Can't use it as a source.
Hey, I didn't make the rules... your "side" did. I'm just applying the same rules you use on the skeptics back on yourselves.
So, I'm still waiting for a definition of this "giant denial machine" you guys keep going on about. Oh, and actual references... like the ones I gave. You know, references that actually can be looked up.
BTW... $25 million over 15 years is small potatos in the Climate Change game. Exxon-mobile just gave $200 million last year alone, to Stephen Schneider's Climate change program at Stanford.
Should he give it back?
Doc
Pete,
Oh, yeah... almost forgot. That Greenpeace report you like so much, it's a little deceptive. They just thow out a number ($25 million) and make a vague accusation (25 million dollars to fund "organizations of the 'climate denial machine,'") but they don't actually tell you WHO.
If you go back in the archives, Tom already did the legwork for you. I'll leave it to you to do a little looking.
Just to let you know though... quoting that Greenpeace report as "proof" of big oil funding "junk science" (kinda like Greenpeace funding fraudulent Amazonian rain forest papers) actuall DOES make you look like someone who hasn't really looked into the issue and is spouting partyline propaganda.
Doc
Pete...
One last thing:
What does me living in Connecticut have to do with ANYTHING? Saying that the weather in Ct is 4 degs warmer now than in 1970 proves nothing. Here let me give you an example:
I live on the continent of Antarctica (actually I don't but you don't know that.) where the temperature have consistently DROPPED or stayed the same for the last 40 years.
Proof of global cooling?
Doc
Heh, Peter, I've asked Chris Mooney if his sequel will be 'The Democrats' War on Science' over this AGW hogwash. Crickets.
You continue to wail on about the pittance provided to the skeptics. The overwhelming bulk of the funding in this fiasco has been to the alarmists, a little something Naomi won't tell you, you poor ignoramus.
=================
Doc
The Koch PAC has given more than $10,000 to 21 lawmakers since 2004—four Democrats and 17 Republicans—which is more than any other oil-and-gas sector PAC, the report states. Topping the House recipients: Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) at $30,500, Eric Cantor (R-Va.) at $28,000, and Joe Barton (R-Texas) at $26,500. On the Senate side, Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Lisa Murkowsi (R-Alaska) both received $20,000 in Koch Funds, and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) received $18,000.
The Chamber has recently come under fire for launching multi-million dollar advertising campaigns designed to derail climate negotiations. Their position has been so controversial that Apple, Exelon, PNM Resources, PG&E, PSEG, Levi Strauss & Co, and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce have all left the U.S. Chamber, and Nike very publicly stepped down from the board.
The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a ... FRAUD:
American Petroleum Institute
US Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Manufacturers
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Industrial Minerals Association
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
Great Northern Project Development
Rosebud Mining
Massey Energy
Alpha Natural Resources
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Georgia Agribusiness Council
Georgia Motor Trucking Association
Corn Refiners Association
National Association of Home Builders
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
Western States Petroleum Association
The lane is very dirty
And my shoes are very thin.
I've got a little pocket
To put a penny in.
If you haven't got a penny
A half-penny will do.
If you haven't got a half-penny
Then God Bless You.
===========
Peter, To put things into perspective
"As the oil spill in the gulf continues to cast a shadow over the perceived competence of the Obama administration, two new reports will also stoke doubts about its cleanliness. Erika Lovely writes today at Politico that Barack Obama has been the biggest recipient of British Petroleum largesse over the past 20 years, taking over $77,000 during his career from the oil company whose rig currently is dumping thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf a day"
No wonder Obama was prepared to give some form of clean award to BP just as the leak occured.
Mooney is a jerk.
He is a fear monger who never met a Republican he couldn't lie about.
He never met a democrat he would tell the truth about.
But abck to the topic of this thread: the ill conceived attack on the Virginia AG for deciding to audit Mann's compliance with state regulations.
Why are so many skeptics doing the non-skeptical thing and condemning this review before it even starts?
As a skeptic, I suggest that we wait for a few....facts to develop and then condemn the AG. That way you have something of substance to actually condemn or ignore and still condemn.
Peter,
Are you truly this dense? There is video of the climate negotiations falling apart, and Koch was nowhere in the room.
By the way, disagreeing with the idiocracy of AGW extremism is a freedom we have, just like you are free to believe idiocratic ideas. And guess what? I get to put my money on the table against what you believe. And if you don't like it, you know what?
You can shove it where the sun don't shine.
I am sick of sanctimonious little true believers like you pretending that it is illegitimate to disagree with your doomsday cult.
The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a ... FACT:
U.S. Agency for International Development
United States Department of Agriculture
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
United States Department of Defense
United States Department of Energy
National Institutes of Health
United States Department of State
United States Department of Transportation
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institution
International Arctic Science Committee
Arctic Council
African Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias
In conclusion
its been fun to post here- I deal in; facts and data that have undergone rigorous empirical testing as prescribed by the 'scientific method' used by all science since the Dawn of the Age of Reasoning'
As the information on those organizations that say climate change is a fraud- and those who say it is not- one thing stands out; The majority of those who say it is a 'fraud' are mostly oil companies- as I alluded to earlier- the US Chamber of Commerce and NOT one viable scientific organization.
As far as Connecticut climatic data- as recorded at the University of Connecticut at Storrs by the EPA he average mean Temperature at that station ARE 2 Degrees higher since 1970
see the EPA and Government site which is globalchange.gov under the northeast region.
If you believe the oil companies and the US Chamber of Commerce over the Scientific conclusions- then I suggest you do not even look--
The EPA site in conjunction with the US Government site globalchange.gov- region/northeast
Northeast annual average temperature has increased by 2°F since 1970, with winter temperatures rising twice this much. Warming has resulted in many other climate-related changes including more frequent very hot days, a longer growing season, an increase in heavy downpours, less winter precipitation falling as snow and more as rain, reduced snowpack, earlier break-up of winter ice on lakes and rivers, earlier spring snowmelt resulting in earlier peak river flows, rising sea surface temperatures, and rising sea level. These trends are projected to continue, with more dramatic changes under higher emissions scenarios compared to lower emissions scenarios. Some of the extensive climate-related changes projected for the region could significantly alter the region’s economy, landscape, character, and quality of life.
Peter, the thing you are missing is that anthropogenic CO2 is probably not causal for all that warming and/or change you remark. All your argument has been is referencing mistaken authorities.
=============
Peter,
Did you happen to notice that every one of the organizations you list are on the take for taxpayers money and they would need to shrink and do useful research if the $$$ were cut off. Do you also remember that Obama bought the full support of this community by significantly increasing funding. If the science is settled why do we need to continue to squander and burden our grandchildren's future earnings with the debt created by wreckless spending.
For the record :
This Peter is a propagandist who understands nothing about the issues , never read anything and just distributes on blogs text that somebody gave him to distribute.
For instance here is what the African Academy of Science SAID (not says) before the Climategate :
"A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within
the global scientific community that human activities are
the main source of climate change and that the burning
of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.
The IPCC reached this conclusion with “90 percent certainty” in its 4.AR issued earlier this year."
.
That isn't scientific opinion . It means that they trust IPCC.
IPCC being a government controlled body , created by UN, it is not difficult to understand why official scientific organisations especially in Africa have ALL INTEREST to trust their government and IPCC ;)
Same goes for some others but not all scientific associations depending on their government policy.
Peter,
I guess the answer to my question is 'yes'.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!