Bad News for Man-Caused Global Warming Evangelists

I suspect that 90% or more people in the world think that it is critical to take care of the earth. I certainly do. There are ways to accomplish this task without ceding control to world government. But this is certainly the aim of those bureaucratic chicken littles who claim untruthfully that man is causing the sky to fall. Fortunately, more scientists are escaping the grasp of the global Ursula to admit that global warming is actually part of a natural, historical trend.

Update 12/26: UN does not let International Climate Science Coalition present at Bali conference.

One of the first commandments God gave to man was to be a steward of the earth. This is wise counsel. In the modern industrial age, we should find ways to keep our environment clean, including solar power, wind power, hybrid cars, nuclear energy, etc. But we can make matters a lot worse by believing things that just ain't so, such as...oh...for models and the people who get paid to believe them.

Al Gore claims that a recent group of scientists who stated the obvious--that man is not a significant cause of global warming--are bought and paid for.
Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider told the Washington Times that after a quick review, about 25 or 30 of the scientists cited in the report may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.

However, Mobil spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the claim, telling the newspaper the company is concerned about climate change reports, and doesn't pay scientists to "bash global-warming theories."

A spokesman for Gore declined WND requests for additional comment on the issue.
Now that is a gigantic pot calling a non-existent kettle black. No wonder there was no further comment.

Here is what Gore and his people were complaining about.
A new U.S. Senate report documents hundreds of prominent scientists – experts in dozens of fields of study worldwide – who say global warming and cooling is a cycle of nature and cannot legitimately be connected to man's activities.
For example,
"Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling – all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by the cyclical variations in solar output," said research physicist John W. Brosnahan...
In a nutshell of other words, the earth is warming, but man is by far not the major cause of it. In another nutshell, we need to shepherd the environment, but we don't need to cede our liberty to government in order that it can aggrandize itself by fighting some imaginary monster. I agree with Brosnahan, who says
"I have not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of the current global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case.

"Even though these computer climate models do not properly handle a number of important factors, including the role of precipitation as a temperature regulator, they are being (mis-)used to force a political agenda upon the U.S.," he continued.

"While there are any number of reasons to reduce carbon dioxide generation, to base any major fiscal policy on the role of carbon dioxide in climate change would be inappropriate and imprudent at best and potentially disastrous economic folly at the worst."

Update 12/26: International Climate Science Coalition, intending to provide information refuting man-caused global warming, was censored from the recent UN conference held in Bali, Indonesia.


  1. Wow, Frank ... You found ... A Guy who thinks Global Warming is a liberal fraud ... Yeah, that certainly trumps the thousands of scientists around the world who think it is real and man caused.

    He's like the one dentist out of ten that thinks toothpaste is a bad idea.


  2. Aaaaaaaaaactually, I quoted one...but he was one of hundreds. I'd like to see a similar Senate report for the other (apparently your) side.

    Now also, don't try to commingle two separate issues--that it is "real" and that it is "man caused". Of course it is "real", but those who don't make a livelihood from the government are far less prone to believe that it is "man caused".

  3. Suppose for the sake of argument that global warming is not caused by human activity. The things that global warming activists want us to do are worth doing for their own sake.

    Less air pollution, more energy conservation and forest preservation ought to be high on our list of priorities anyway.

  4. If that and similar things were all they wanted, that would be fabulous. But they want much, much more.

  5. like what, exactly?

    hydrogen cars? solar power? wind power? new technologies? Apollo - effort scientific break through leaps?


  6. JM,

    There you go again. Imputing to me things that are not correct....but you must know this. I'm not sure why I touch such a raw nerve with you on this subject. All of the things you list I'm in favor of. What I'm not in favor of is crap like Kyoto and Bali where government control would make the situation even worse, and would make it LESS likely that we would develop hydrogen cars, solar power, wind power, etc.

  7. I think a great example of the harm caused to our country because of this fraud is the recent energy and farm bills together with other legislation which have mandated so much use of ethanol.

    The rise in all food and fuel costs brought on by ethanol mandates will directly affect our economy in a profoundly negative way while the benefits to our environment and global temperatures will be negligible.

    The myth of man-made global warming has likely already done more to screw up our economy in the upcoming years than anything else we on the left can lay at the feet of GWB. Sorry Jeff and Richard...this farce has hurt our country and will continue to hurt us as long as Democrats and Republicans use it as an issue with which to scare Americans into supporting more dumb governmental policies.

  8. OOPS! I meant "The rise in all food and fuel costs brought on by ethanol mandates will directly EFFECT our economy in a profoundly negative way"

    I hate it when people mix up affect and effect...I usually pride myself on not screwing that one up. Sorry everyone!

  9. Jeremy,

    I laughing hard. You and me have a lot in common--the "affect" of using effect and affect incorrectly "effect"s me in the same way.


    Thanks for a very salient point in the discussion. We CAN work this out without a bunch of governmental red tape that ruins the economy, thus making it harder to achieve the clean environment that we need. When I was in Khabarovsk, Russia a few years back, I was shocked by the filth that the post-Communist-era factories spewed into the atmosphere. The Russians (at least at that time) seemed to be so preoccupied with other things that they didn't have time to clean up their environment.

    The greatest of environmental degradations have been committed by the most tyrannical governments, and the only way we're going to solve this problem is for government to encourage it, but to otherwise get the heck out of the way.

    Sometimes those on our side of the issue (who believe that man is not the major cause of global warming) fall into the trap of acting like they don't believe in global warming at all. This is a problem. It's a problem similar to those who think that the earth was created in seven 24-hour periods. There is dramatic evidence to the contrary, but the non-believers make us the brunt of criticism because they still don't believe it despite all the facts.

    Global warming is real. It takes blind obedience, however, to believe the computer model Gods when they prophesy falsely concerning man's effect on the environment.

  10. Gore says 25-30 of the dissenting scientists get money from Exxon. Even if that is true and relevant, what about the other 370-375 scientists in the report? Gore refuses to engage in debate, instead falling back on canards about the science being settled, except for corrupt scientists being paid by oil companies.

  11. I would suspect that most scientists who claim to support the theory that man causes global warming receive their grant money from the government.

    Environmental resposibility I am in favor of. Giving the government Carte Blanche to screw things up even more - Definitley Not!!

  12. See? You loose me again.

    Ethanol is a waste of time and money.

    Right now we have have a lot of CNG available and American auto makers who refuse to make enough CNG cars. I just filled my work car up on Friday, all the way from E, for $2.75. I get around 225 miles on a tank.

    Reduction in Greenhouse gasses are bad for the economy how?

    Reduction in carbon emissions is bad for you how?

    You guys keep talking about "bad" and "harmful" things like Kyoto and the Bali agreement are, but, I'll bet you're repeating someone else's talking points and haven't actually read the documents.

    Ethanol and farm subsidies really have nothing to do with Kyoto. They're just governmental boondoggles the politicians feed every year.

  13. Jeff,

    Ethanol has nothing to do with Kyoto but the most common argument for it by politicians from both sides is man-made global warming.

    Your argument that ethanol is a waste of time and money is absolutely correct. Thats why ethanol is a great example of how the myth of man made global warming hurts us every day.

  14. You can't help it Frank, neither can I. We were all born that way. You support 2nd Amendment interpretations to alow everyone to own guns, even assault rifles. You deny the anthropogenic causes of warming. You support the various chapters from the book of war published by the Bush family. The UN is out for control of your life and the world. Largely our poitics are determined by nature more than nurture. At least I am honest when I say I have been a liberal Dem since birth, oppose the Bush wars, believe we are screwing up the planet wherein the polar bears will drown. I would give my guns to big brother in a heartbeat if all guns could disappear from our closets. Met a 80 year old retiree who somehow managed to bring his BAR home from the Pacific. What does someone need a BAR in their closet for?

    Think about it!

  15. First, we all can help it. When the truth stares us in the face, we should accept it. (Think about it.)

    Second, let me clear up a misconception that you have: I do not support George W. Bush. I think Bush is one of the worst things that ever happened to this country (his father was another). I have never voted for a Bush, nor could you pay me or threaten me enough to.


    I can imagine why a WWII vet would want to have a BAR--it probably saved his life more than once. Are you insinuating that he might do something dastardly with it?

  16. Wow...thats cool. I'd love a BAR in my closet!

    My wife won't even let me have a 22. 3rd generation Utah county Republican wife thinks guns are evil and she won't let me have one. WP seems to be wrong in the case of my wife. Clearly some political views aren't inborn.

  17. There are always exceptions. I for one am a John Kerry hunting Democrat. Rather be that than a Mitt Romney rabbit shooting Republican.

    Jeremy, we were supposed to go shoot a couple buffalo last week but the storms postponed it for another week or so. I have been smoking buffalo roasts in the smoker for the last two days and giving them away to friends. Unbelievable flavor and quality!

  18. Glad you did not and do not support Bush. I am certain the BAR saved his life and his buddies in those Bonzai charges. He would not do anything with it other than to show his grandkids when he tells them about his experiences in the great WWII. Neither would I do anything with my .338 Lapua than plug long distance elk, deer and a buffalo now and again.

    With regard to GW I subscribed to the journal 'Science' just so I could read first hand what the SCIENTISTS are saying about it. Not one of the them or the articles has dismissed the link between human activity and GW. You have lost that one Frank.

  19. Thanks for your reply. It's good for me to be able to see where you're coming from. My hunch is that Science magazine may be as co-opted by the Establishment as is the IPCC and the conference at Bali that wouldn't allow the International Climate Science Coalition to make their presentation of clear evidence that man is having a negligible effect on global warming.

    Science magazine or not, there is a plethora of scientists who do not think man is causing global warming. Those who do are generally unsure, but they are afraid that if we don't do something now it will be too late.

  20. Nah, "Science" is published by thee American Academy of Sciences and maintains a vigorous independence. The establishment is the Exxon, Bush, Haliburton, Cheney, Chevron cabal. Gore and company have no establishment to co-opt anyone.

  21. I don't follow how Exxon and Chevron are in Bush/Cheney's pockets, nor have I seen any evidence of it.

    What I have seen is that government-paid (i.e. the UN) scientists will not get paid unless they toe the party line on man-caused global warming. It is very clear that those scientists (and there are a lot of them) who do not subscribe to the fabricated "consensus" are ostracized by the IPCC--a body of politicians more than they are scientists.

  22. Here's a link to one Washington Post article in 2001 wherein oil executives met with Cheney's people to insure US energy policy benefited their companies:

  23. I read the article. It does not surprise me that Bush and Cheney cavort with oil magnates. I believe they met in secret. Secret is what W and Cheney are all about. That's the establishment way of doing things.

    But how does that prove your point, that oil magnates are paying people to discount man-made global warming? I have yet to see an article about that.

    Gore is part of the establishment as well. He's making big money offering his snake-oil theories and movies.

    When it gets right down to it, the people who really study the issue come to one of two conclusions: (1) the earth is warming, but his has warmed and cooled in several iterations before, or (2) the earth is warming, and we're afraid that it might warm out of control, but we're not sure.

    Those, if you get right down to it, are the two perspectives.

  24. There have been a couple WSJ, NYT and WA Post articles on the various organizations Exxon among others have paid to disseminate the word that the GW is not manmade. Get back to you. It is old news. These very organizations back in the 70's said and were hired to say there is no link between tobacco and lung cancer Frank, same ones.

  25. I've heard that tobacco-lung cancer link as well, but I've never seen any proof of it.

    That all sounds pretty fishy considering what the lawsuits against the tobacco companies were all about.

  26. Woops that sounded weird. Of course there's a link between tobacco and lung cancer ;-) I meant the link to the organizations ("Exxon and others") who said that tobacco didn't cause lung cancer and that man did not cause global warming.

  27. Here's just a couple from MoJo News and MSNBC about Exxon funding orgs to downplay the effects of GW:

    Report: ExxonMobil Spends Millions Funding Global Warming Skeptics
    A new investigation by Mother Jones magazine has revealed that ExxonMobil has spent at least $8 million dollars funding a network of groups to challenge the existence of global warming. We speak with the author of the report, a member of one the organizations that receives money from Exxon and a journalist covering environmental and climate change issues.

    MSNBC staff and news service reports
    updated 11:42 a.m. MT, Fri., Jan. 12, 2007
    NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.
    Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.
    Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been “widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.”

    CEI acknowledged the change. “I would make an argument that we’re a useful ally, but it’s up to them whether that’s in the priority system that they have, right or wrong,” director Fred Smith said on CNBC’s “On the Money.”
    Last year, CEI ran advertisements, featuring a little girl playing with a dandelion, that downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide emissions.
    Since Democrats won control of Congress in November, heavy industries have been nervously watching which route the United States may take on future regulations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases scientists link to global warming. Several lawmakers on Friday introduced a bill to curb emissions.

  28. One scientist who cast doubts about the anthropogenic connections to GW admits he was paid nearly a million bucks to lie about smoking and lung cancer. Here is another little bonus for you:



    The National Environmental Trust hosted a press conference on April 13th to discuss new revelations in the May issue of Vanity Fair (now on newsstands) linking one of the most prominent scientific skeptics on global warming and his tactics to the three-decade tobacco industry conspiracy to hide the connection between smoking and lung ailments — an effort that has led to billions of dollars in court judgments and legislation against the industry.

    Listen to the briefing [mp3, 6 megs]

    Read an industry media plan to oppose global warming [PDF] — an April 3, 1998 American Petroleum Institute strategy memo on its public relations campaign to plant doubts about global warming science.

    Mark Hertsgaard, investigative journalist and author of Vanity Fair's May cover story, "While Washington Slept," described in detail how Dr. Frederick Seitz, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences and one of the most often-quoted skeptics on global warming, was paid over half a million dollars by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the connection between smoking and cancer. Seitz went on to spearhead a campaign to cast scientific doubt about global warming.

    Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science, addressed the state of climate science and the disruptive role industry-backed skeptics have played in clouding the near-unanimous findings of global warming scientists.

  29. First a comment on your global warming article excerpts. I found and read on DemocracyNow (I think) the interview you were referring to. It's interesting that DemocracyNow claims that "ExxonMobil has spent at least $8 million dollars funding a network of groups to challenge the existence of global warming" when that is clearly not the case. It is very lacking in integrity when people try to obfuscate the FACT that MAN'S LINK to global warming is the issue being challenged and not global warming itself.

    Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute made it clear in the interview that it was the disputation of the Kyoto treaty and its assumptions about how global warming is caused that had been the target of Exxon's funding. That is a pittance compared the $8.5 BILLION that the pro-man-caused-global-warming advocates spent during the same period. Not only did Exxon spend over 1,000 times LESS than their opponents, it was not for the purpose that you claimed. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE between claiming that global warming is not real and funding an effort to clear up obvious misconceptions about how it is caused.

    Your quote from the MSNBC article of the Exxon spokesman that "its position on climate change has been “widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is."
    is a huge understatement.

  30. Mas noticias para ti:

    NOVEMBER 15, 2006
    Global Warming Doubt Linked to Tobacco Industry
    Good bed mates: Global warming doubt and Tobacco

    While at a conference in San Francisco this week, I happened across an interesting PBS story on Product Defense which directly links the tobacco industry to the claim that global warming isn’t happening. Firms specializing in product defense create “grass root coalitions” that cast doubt on scientific research when it directly affects a product’s bottom line revenues.

    An example of spinning science for the purpose of confusing the public while benefiting Big Business is on the health hazards of second-hand smoke. In 1993 Philip Morris set up a coalition that cast doubt on studies showing that second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous for health. According to the BBC, Philip Morris decided to “link the tobacco issues with other more politically correct products’ and the campaign on issues like global warming”.

    The result was the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, which was “one of the first organizations to throw a smokescreen over global warming.” Watch it.

    And surprise surprise, Exxon Mobil contributes money to this coalition as well. Glad to know their record-breaking quarterly profits ($10.5 B) are going to such a good cause.

    Erin Swanson

  31. WP,

    The article you linked to (I think here) about Fredrick Seitz CLAIMS that he "Admits" to what they CLAIM, but there is NOTHING on or linked to the article that corroborates this.

    If you want to know the truth, go here. The guy interviewed Seitz and Seitz says about the claim to his tobacco link that they are FOC (full of crap).

    You're taking an otherwise good discussion far afield because you so badly want to believe things that aren't true.

  32. Pardon me for taking you too far afield good buddy, 10-4 and out, over.

  33. The vast majority of climate scientists believe that humans are now a major cause of climate change.

    The issue is not a political one but a scientific one, based on observations. As individuals we can each study the evidence to post-doctoral level. Or, if we do not have the talent or time the next best thing is to rely on the consensus of those who have studied the matter in depth. If you were ill would you trust a fellow Digger, blogger or someone who studied medicine for many years? If one maverick doctor disagrees with the consensus would you trust your life to them or the majority opinion?

    Who are the real experts? Is there enough evidence for them to come to a consensus conclusion? National Science Academies would be a good place to start.

    The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued this statement in support of the IPCC

    “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.”

    National Academy of Sciences (US),
    Royal Society (United Kingdom),
    Chinese Academy of Sciences,
    Science Council of Japan,
    Russian Academy of Sciences,
    Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),
    Royal Society of Canada,
    Académie des Sciences (France),
    Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany),
    Indian National Science Academy,
    Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),
    Australian Academy of Sciences,
    Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,
    Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
    Indonesian Academy of Sciences,
    Royal Irish Academy,
    Academy of Sciences Malaysia,
    Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,
    Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

    Source: Royal Society 2001 Royal Society 2005 For the comments of other scientific bodies

    The scientific evidence and consensus is with the IPCC. Just as the scientific evidence and consensus is for evolution.

    No one on the IPCC doubts that there are cycles and natural factors. The question is whether the global warming observed since the mid 1970's has a significant human cause. The IPCC says yes with 90% certainty.

    Sir David Attenborough was once a climate skeptic, believing that it can all be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is why

    Natural causes alone (Milankovitch cycles, sunspots, solar activity, volcanoes etc.), cannot explain climate variations since the mid 1970s

    but adding human causes we get a prediction much closer to observations

    UK Government's Meteorological Office debunking of climate-change-denial myths

    New Scientist magazine addressing the main skeptic claims

    Oxford University intro to climate

    NASA intro to climate

    Climate denial is like the tobacco industry funding their shills. Who should we trust mainstream science or big business shills?

  34. Be careful Anon. Since you do not agree with the proprietor of SUMP you could be taking a good discussion too far afield.

    Could not agree more with you based on my reading of a number of journal articles in "Science" and podcasts from paleoclimatologists at Stanford U.

    Too many read and listen to the 'inconvenient' Glenn Beck I think for their science and understanding of this issue.

    Pardon me Frank for commenting again and disagreeing with you.


    Well, I guess this must be the most evil, anti-American lady in the world.

  36. Mr. Bell,

    Your irascible comments are lacking in substance and are meant to be nothing but provocative. Please stop insinuating that I am a maniac bent on destroying the earth; we've already plowed that ground, and it's clear that I believe in as much stewardship (or more) than you.


    My comment about being far afield was directed toward your shoddy claims that Frederick Seitz admitted that he was paid by the tobacco industry--he did no such thing, and it's not hard to find out the truth of that matter.

    Otherwise, your contribution to the debate has been enlightening. As you'll see from my previous comments, I did not know, for example, that Bush and Cheney had had secret meetings with oil companies, and that oil companies had financed the spreading of skepticism that man was causing global warming.

  37. Anon,

    I studied most of your links for about 2 hours. Here are some comments:

    The 90% figure is that man's effect on the environment is "detectable", not significant.

    Whether it's actually detectable at all is left to doubt. says much the same thing about the confidence level. Under the section "What can we predict?" Says this: "Climate models can give us this kind of information - What is most
    likely to happen and what will be very unlikely to happen to the climate in the future." Over the next 50 years, the avg temp will increase by .5 to 1 degree Celsius.

    Interestingly, refutes some of what WP said earlier on this thread: "there is no indication that ExxonMobil paid the climate skeptics directly and the scientists may have their own motivations for participating" Environmental defense also has this doozy supposedly "11 facts that will blow you away" but which mean absolutely nothing as they are completely isolated from comparison with long-term historical trends.

  38. By the way, WP:

    Have any of the podcasts that you listened to at Stanford University been from Stephen Schneider, he of 1970's "we're approaching an ice age" fame?

    My point here is that all of us need to broaden our horizons and not just think because we've heard one point of view that we know everything there is to know about a subject.

  39. No Frank it was another prof. I started with an open mind about GW, but I confess I was born a Dem. I have heard persuasive arguments from both sides. As I said I invested in the Journal Science so I could read and access their online archives. Yes, there are a number of credible scientists who say GW is a consequence of solar activity and part of the normal cycle of things. Similar situation occurred in the Roman era when grapes and wine making even olives were grown in Germany and northern Europa. Time will tell as the subject is studied. Ultimately, I have faith in the system and science will prevail. For the present I am persuaded GW is anthropogenic or man caused.

  40. WP,

    I appreciate your reply and your willingness to look at both sides of the issue.

    You and Anonymous have helped educate me on--for me--an opposite perspective, and I realize that there is a lot that I don't know about it.

  41. GW is potentially a very troubling issue for all of the planet and merits scrutiny, study and action by all of us. China is likely to replace us shortly as the biggest contributor of greenhouse gases and so far they appear to be unwilling to change their practice of completing at least one new coal fired electric facility weekly.

  42. I completely agree. From the perspective of cleaning up the environment, I think we should do more, including China.

    I wrote about their scheduled emergence as the world's biggest polluter here.

    That's why I'm so frustrated by some manmade global warming advocates, particularly of the Kyoto kind. It did nothing to improve the environment, but it gives a lot of people a soapbox from which they hypocritically preach to the rest of us.

    It seems like the recent Bali conference may have accomplished something, improving our ability to keep earth forested.


Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog