Today from No Impact Man, is a damning indictment against the "Global Climate Coalition" - a group of businesses tied to the use of fossil fuels. Documents filed during a recent lawsuit show that the coalition knowingly lied about global warming through "an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming."

The document shows that their own scientists informed them that the science behind global warming was irrefutable as early as 1995.

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

The post references an April 23rd New York Times article by Andrew Revkin.

The Global Climate Coalition disbanded in 2002, but some of its like the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute continue to actively lobby against action on climate change. For the record, here's the complete list of coalition members. The bailout ridden auto sector is particularly well represented. If only they had been using those resources to build real products:

• Air Transport Association
• Allegheny Power
• Aluminum Association, Inc.
• American Automobile Manufacturers Association
• American Commercial Barge Line Co.
• American Farm Bureau Federation
• American Forest & Paper Association
• American Highway Users Alliance
• American Iron and Steel Institute
• American Petroleum Institute
• American Portland Cement Alliance
• Amoco
• Association of American Railroads
• Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
• Atlantic Richfield Coal Company
• Baker Refineries
• Bethlehem Steel
• BHP Minerals
• Chamber of Shipping of America
• Chemical Manufacturers Association
• Chevron
• Chrysler Corporation
• Cinergy
• CONRAIL
• Consumers Energy
• Council of Industrial Boiler Owners
• CSX Transportation, Inc.
• Cyprus-Amax
• Dow Chemical Company
• Drummond Company
• Duke Power Company
• DuPont
• Eastman Chemical
• Edison Electric Institute
• ELCON
• ExxonMobil
• Fertilizer Institute
• Ford Motor Company
• General Motors
• Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
• Greencool
• Hoechst Celanese Chemical Group
• Illinois Power Company
• Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp.
• McDonnell-Douglas
• Mobil Corporation
• National Association of Manufacturers
• National Lime Association
• National Mining Association
• National Ocean Industries Association
• National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
• Natural Rural Electric Cooperative Association
• Norfolk Southern
• Northern Indiana Public Serv. Co.
• Ohio Edison
• Parker Drilling Company
• Process Gas Consumers
• Shell
• Society of the Plastic Industry
• Southern Company
• Steel Manufacturers Association
• TECO Energy Inc.
• Texaco
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce
• USX Corporation
• Union Carbide
• Union Pacific
• Virginia Power
• Western Fuels Association

Pass it on.....

In news that will send the spirits of skeptics, deniers and global warming critics soaring, their long maintained condemnation of climate change computer models has been justified.

For years, skeptics have maintained that computer driven models of global warming fail to accurately project changes to the Earth's climate. Recent research now supports their view. Unfortunately for them, the problem is that models have been too conservative in their projections.

"It turns out that global warming critics were right when they said that global climate models did not do a good job at predicting climate change," Robock commented. "But what has been wrong recently is that the climate is changing even faster than the models said. In fact, Arctic sea ice is melting much faster than any models predicted, and sea level is rising much faster than IPCC previously predicted."

The study also shows that carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere faster than expected, with emissions now 35 per cent higher in 2006 than in 1990.

Equally unfortunate is that due to a general failure to read and inability to generate coherent arguments in their own defense, skeptics likely won't read far enough into this post to get the punchline.

Here's a good rebuttal for anyone still running into the C02 - They Call It Pollution, We Call It Life crowd.

A favorite argument of global warming deniers is that the carbon dioxide is harmless because it's "just plant food". It turns out that like any other "food", too much will only cause harm.

Both Grist and Environmental Defense are covering new research showing that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will mean less food value (i.e. decreased nitrogen and protein) in our fruits and vegetables. Think you'll get around that by boosting your meat diet? Once more, think again. Lower food value in plants, means less protein for grazing cows and pigs and therefore less meat produced by each animal. Add to this the exploding demand for meat from developing countries like China and you will need to tell me where we're meant to get all of these food calories from.

Maybe the new denier jingle can be "C02 - They Call It Pollution, We Call It A Cure for Obesity".

This week's cover story in Newsweek is leveled squarely at global warming deniers, outlining the concerted and well funded plan by certain industries to mislead the public and derail efforts to fight global warming.

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless.

Critical thinking 101 - when you see remarks like these, all coming from the same source, know that the people making these claims do not have a real position based on evidence. They are arguing for a particular result, in this case to stop any action that reduces greenhouse gases. If they had a real position to defend, they use wouldn't change their argument on a monthly basis.

The good news is that the denial machine is slowly failing. Last year, polls found that 64 percent of Americans thought there was "a lot" of scientific disagreement on climate change. That figure has now fallen to 39%. However the real discrepancy lies between the opinions of Americans and the understanding of those living in other nations.

In Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia the public is fully aware of the scientific consensus on global warming. Despite the difference in understanding the polls reveal, the continued failure of US to join the world ranks says more about the workings of the country itself than it does about its people.

The fact is that the American people need to confront a very uncomfortable truth about their nation, one that goes far beyond the reality of global warming and touches the core of their culture and society. That is, that while laying claim to the title of the world's leader of democracy and freedom, the United States of America represents the modern world's most sophisticated machine for brainwashing their own populace and ensuring their continued ignorance - to the impacts of their lifestyles, to the loss of their own freedoms, and to the failings of their own democratic state.

Ultimately, the American people need to confront the real hoax being perpetrated by their elected officials, educational institutions, and media conglomerates on a daily basis - that they live in the world's freest country, despite all evidence to the contrary.


To read the scientific information behind the Newsweek article visit Grist.

To learn what you can do about deniers click here.

Surrey School Board Trustee Heather Stilwell gained national attention this past May by proposing that The Great Global Warming Swindle be made available in Surrey high schools alongside An Inconvenient Truth in order to ensure students are offered a "balanced perspective" on the issue of global warming.

The Board heard her proposal in May and unanimously passed the following motion:

THAT WHEREAS it has been reported in the media that all secondary schools in the Province will be provided with a copy of the movie “An Inconvenient Truth”; and WHEREAS this movie is advancing one particular view of the world’s climate change based on ice, etc.; and WHEREAS many scientists world-wide have expressed scepticism about this scientific accuracy; and WHEREAS it is our role as Trustees to ensure that students are provided with accurate information and a balanced perspective when there is credible information presented on two sides of an issue.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the school district’s Instructional Resources staff ensure that the resource “The Great Global Warming Swindle” if approved by the district’s Learning Resource Committee, and/or any other resource the committee identifies that provides a balanced view of global warming, be made available to our schools.

Chairperson Wilson called the question on the amended motion and it was CARRIED unanimously.

I contacted Heather Stilwell last week who said, "As we left it at the end of June, staff were working on getting the kind of permission rights that we require for school use. It is certainly my expectation that this will be available in September."

The Great Global Warming Swindle has been widely criticized for misrepresenting global warming science and the opinions of researchers. In an embarrassing appearance, the film's director Martin Durkin was recently interviewed on ABC Australia where he was confronted about the film's inaccuracies and offered little information in his own defence.

For as long as global warming has been at the forefront of the media, there has been climate change deniers muddying the public discourse and slowing progress towards solutions.

The press, our politicians, and even the progressive blogosphere, have been integral in giving these "skeptics" a voice - by accommodating opinions that are patently false, and lending authority to those engaging in an agenda of misinformation.

While deniers arguments gain coverage in the mainstream thanks to so called "balanced reporting", bloggers are to blame for freely publishing deniers comments regardless of how demonstrably false they are - a practice that gives the false impression of a debate about the facts of climate change when in reality there isn't one.

There are those who are genuinely misinformed or under-informed about global warming and to their credit seek new information and correct their opinions as they learn more. For the rest - those that knowingly perpetuate lies, or stubbornly refuse to consider new information - it is time that they were treated for what they are, the intellectual children of the online community.

To that end, today represents the beginning of a new comment moderation policy at The Conscious Earth. The following rules will go into effect immediately:

• Anyone making ad hominem attacks in the global warming debate will have their comments summarily rejected.
• Commenters that regurgitate an existing and previously debunked skeptic argument will be directed to the Grist's Skeptics Page, where they can learn the facts behind the false evidence they are citing.
  
• Subsequent comments regarding the point in question will be accepted only if they provide new evidence that counters the conclusions of the scientific community or that represents new findings not previously discussed in the blogosphere.

In the name of genuine climate change debate, I encourage all members of the green and scientific community to take a similar approach. I'll be placing this post at the top of The Conscious Earth's Top Posts section. Feel free to link to it if helpful. You can also use the following form letter for responding to comments.

Public debate requires learning, openness to new information, arguments that address issues, freedom from personal attacks, and the basic ability for rational discourse. By accommodating deniers, and their refusal to engage in any of these behaviours, we've all played a role in lending authority to their irrational opinions and in slowing progress towards solutions.

Nobody would spend a decade debating bed time with a 5 year old. It's now long past due to end the current climate change "debate" and send deniers to bed, without their supper.

For months, global warming skeptics have been touting The Great Global Warming Swindle as a balanced and fair counterpart to those calling for urgent action on the issue of climate change. In reality, The Swindle is a misleading, dishonest and ill-conceived work of propaganda that is chock full of paid industry mouth pieces while being anorexically thin on genuine evidence.

Nowhere was this better revealed than in a recent interview conducted by ABC Australia's Tony Jones with the Martin Durkin, the film's director. Durkin lurches, sputters and sweats his way through the 10 minute grilling as Jones lines up example after example of omissions and lies that he presented in his film.

For those on the sane side of the spectrum, you are excused from debating this movie with anyone who insists on citing The Swindle as 'evidence' after watching this clip.





Rest in peace GGWS.

See part one of the interview at DeSmogBlog.

In yet another blow to climate change 'skeptics', a newly released study demonstrates that global temperatures are rising at an accelerating rate despite the fact that the sun's output has been decreasing since 1985.

The study not only delivers a blow to deniers arguments, but to their credibility as well. For the past decade, a well funded strategy of public relations spin and unsupported claims have been the backbone of skeptics' attempts to derail efforts to fight global warming.

With the solar argument now put to rest, skeptics will be scrounging for a new angle. Watch for it in the coming months.

Dear (insert commenter's name),

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to the global warming issue. Please see the following page to find the scientifically endorsed and verified response to the information you provided. If you have additional and relevant information to add after reviewing it, I hope you'll return to share it with our readers here.

Thank you for your shared interest in creating solutions for global warming, and a sustainable economy where all can prosper. If you'd like additional information on why you're being directed to the link above, please visit this page.

Regards,

Odiyya

In a statement the redefines the notion of cogent argument for the worse, Exxon has launched a volley at Greenpeace saying that the oil giant's stance against Kyoto, their opposition to the European carbon trading system, and their funding of climate change denier groups does not make they themselves 'deniers'.

Mr Cohen (Exxon spokesman) was in London to explain the position of Exxon.

The firm's funding of third-party thinktanks, which have produced papers questioning the human role in climate change, has recently been heavily criticised in a Greenpeace report.

Exxon retaliated yesterday by saying some of Greenpeace's facts were "just flat wrong" and in one case "absurd", though the company hinted that it may stop funding the controversial thinktanks.

Nice explanation. Exxon maintains that it is supportive of an international cap and trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, so long as they continue to fund deception campaigns on global warming and oppose international agreements, like Kyoto, that represent a bare minimum of what needs to be accomplished, the logical conclusion is that they will not endorse a level of carbon limits that would genuinely address the problem of climate change.

On the upside, if their arguments continue to become weaker and more absurd it just might mean that we're moving closer to more aggressive action on the issue.

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, an energy funded climate change denier made famous for saying that global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people", was put in his place by the new Chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Barbara Boxer, during Al Gore's testimony last week.

After Inhofe attempted to turn the proceedings into a PR spectacle, Ms. Boxer kindly reminded him of what his job is. Film clip below.

Prior to becoming a professional spin doctor, salmon farmer, and apologist for unsustainable forestry, Patrick Moore was the cofounder of Greenpeace and served as that organization's president from 1977 to 1986. Proving that a man's beliefs follow his income, he has now become the latest "skeptic" in the lucrative business of misrepresenting the legitimate scientific evidence of global warming.

Last week the esteemed Royal Society, the world's oldest scientific society, issued a letter to Exxon rightfully criticizing them for funding groups that misrepresent the scientific facts of climate change. In that letter, the Royal Society accurately outlined the current scientific consensus on global warming, while quoting peer reviewed studies referencing more than 300 scientific papers that confirm the role of human generated CO2 in rising world temperatures.

In a response that wouldn't hold water in a junior high school debating club, Patrick Moore accused the Royal Society of repressing science.

"It appears to be the policy of the Royal Society to stifle dissent and silence anyone who may have doubts about the connection between global warming and human activity," said Patrick Moore, "The last thing the world needs is for the Royal Society to cast a chill over science. That kind of repression seems more suited to the Inquisition than to a modern, respected scientific body".

In his release, Patrick Moore (who apparently holds a doctorate) cited zero peer reviewed studies and referenced, you guessed it, zero scientific papers.

This is a case of the pot, who after failing to find a kettle to call black, simply makes stuff up. It seems that the past two decades have brought as much damage to Moore's scientific knowledge as it has to his personal integrity.