THE REAL SCIENCE BEHIND GLOBAL WARMING!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21361191-421,00.html 

Drought blamed on lack of faith

A LEADING Muslim cleric has blamed the devastating drought, climate change and pollution on Australians’ lack of faith in Allah.

Radical sheik Mohammed Omran told followers at his Brunswick mosque that out-of-control secular scientific values had caused environmental disaster.

“The fear of Allah is not there. So we have now a polluted earth, a polluted water, a wasteland,” he told a meeting this year.

“What are the people now crying for? The prophet told you hundreds of years ago, ‘Look after the water’.”

A Sunday Herald Sun investigation also found clerics railing against “evil” democracy, vilifying Jews and Christians and encouraging jihad and polygamy.

And in a popular DVD selling locally, a foreign sheik exhorts Muslims to take control of Australia by out-breeding non-believers.

British-based Sheik Abdul Raheem Green forbade Muslims from having fewer than four children so Australia would become an Islamic state.

Behind the closed doors of some Melbourne mosques and bookshops, sheiks push for Sharia law, declare Islam at war with the “sick” West and gloat that September 11 boosted Muslim numbers.

At a Muslim information centre in Coburg, extreme literature shares shelves with DVDs by firebrand sheiks from around the globe.

The centre, run by Abu Hamza, serves Muslims in the northern suburbs.

Many CDs and DVDs there feature London sheik Abdul Raheem Green, who is on an Australian Government watchlist.

On one he tells his audience to Islamise Australia through a Muslim baby boom.

“The birth rate in the Western countries is going down. People are more interested in their careers . . . they don’t want to have babies,” Sheik Green says in one DVD.

“So don’t you think, Muslim brothers and sisters, we’ve got a bit of an opportunity here? They’re not having babies any more. So what if, instead, we have the babies?

“In Canada one in three or one in four children being born is a Muslim. What does that do to the demographic shift of a Muslim population in 20 years’ time?

Islamic Council of Victoria spokesman Waleed Aly said he was disappointed though not surprised by the Sunday Herald Sun‘s discoveries.

But he said extremist speech and literature was confined to only a couple of Melbourne groups.

“If I walked into (Omran’s group) or (Hamza’s centre) it wouldn’t surprise me,” he said.

Mr Aly said he believed Muslims were radicalised by “cult-like peer groups”, not hate literature.

Published in: on March 12, 2007 at 3:50 pm  Leave a Comment  

THE ADVENT OF THE NEW AND HOLY CHURCH!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070312/wl_uk_afp/britainpolitics_070312082025

Brown wants ‘new world order’ to fight global warming

Mon Mar 12, 4:20 AM ET

LONDON (AFP) – Gordon Brown, likely to be the next prime minister, will deliver a speech calling for a “new world order” to combat global warming on Monday.

According to excerpts released by the finance ministry, Chancellor of the Exchequer Brown will also say the United Nations should make the fight against global warming a core “pillar” of its international mission.

Brown will praise the  Union‘s progress in combatting climate change after EU leaders on Friday agreed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 percent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels.

He is set to announce domestic policy proposals that are targetted at helping Britons save energy, thereby cutting their individual carbon emissions, ahead of the government’s publication of its Climate Change Bill on Tuesday.

“People want to make the right choices and they want help to take the right decisions,” Brown will say.

“Government must provide practical help with, wherever possible, incentives in preference to penalties.”

Brown is the favourite to be Britain’s next prime minister, as Tony Blair has pledged to step down by September.

Published in: on March 12, 2007 at 3:46 pm  Leave a Comment  

HERETICS DESERVE DEATH!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml  

Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’

By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph

Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007

Scientists who questioned mankind’s impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been “hijacked” by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

advertisement

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

“Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor.

“I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.”

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a “religion”, forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology – who also appeared on the documentary – recently claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

“Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: “The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do.”

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”

Published in: on March 12, 2007 at 3:44 pm  Leave a Comment  

THE RISE OF THE HERETICS! BURN THEM!

Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists

By JULIE WHELDON – More by this author » Last updated at 00:22am on 5th March 2007Comments Comments (55)

Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.

A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is “virtually no doubt” it is linked to man’s use of fossil fuels.

But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.

In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.

Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.

Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.

But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world’s leading scientists.

But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a “sham” given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.

Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.

“That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said. “It’s not true.”

Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change.

“The government’s chief scientific adviser Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change,” he said.

Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.

He said: “The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.

“It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c.”

The documentary is likely to spark fierce criticism from the scientific establishment.

A spokesman for the Royal Society said yesterday: “We are not saying carbon dioxide emissions are the only factor in climate change and it is very important that debate keeps going.

“But, based on the situation at the moment, we have to do something about CO2 emissions.”

Published in: on March 5, 2007 at 9:06 pm  Leave a Comment  

MORE ATHEISTS OR A-GLOBALWARMISTS

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

Allegre’s second thoughts

The Deniers — The National Post’s series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science

LAWRENCE SOLOMON, Financial Post

Published: Friday, March 02, 2007

Claude Allegre, one of France’s leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.

“By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century,” Dr. Allegre, a renowned geochemist, wrote 20 years ago in Cles pour la geologie..” Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity,” a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming’s “potential risks are very great” and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe’s fragility in order to stave off “spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.”

Published in: on March 5, 2007 at 9:04 pm  Leave a Comment  

FAITHLESS!

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.

 

Image from the programme

The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that a ‘greenhouse effect’ of carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.

Instead the documentary highlights recent research that the effect of the sun’s radiation on the atmosphere may be a better explanation for the regular swings of climate from ice ages to warm interglacial periods and back again.

The film argues that the earth’s climate is always changing, and that rapid warmings and coolings took place long before the burning of fossil fuels. It argues that the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions not only may have little impact on climate change, it may also have the unintended consequence of stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease.

The film features an impressive roll-call of experts, including nine professors – experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology – from such reputable institutions as MIT, NASA, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.

The film hears from scientists who dispute the link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

Published in: on March 5, 2007 at 9:03 pm  Leave a Comment  

GODLESS!!

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a ‘Myth’ – Questions Gore’s Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with “Hospodárské noviny”, a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It’s not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it’s an undignified slapstick that people don’t wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the “but’s” are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions…•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you’re not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don’t know how to do it and don’t plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don’t have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don’t appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it’s obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right …•

A: …I am right…•

Q: Isn’t there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It’s such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don’t you believe that we’re ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven’t heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can’t. I don’t see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don’t think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It’s clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It’s also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature – by eliminating private ownership and similar things – much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That’s why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you’re unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]

Developing…

Published in: on February 13, 2007 at 2:26 pm  Leave a Comment  

MORE HERESY FROM THE FAITHLESS!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph

Last Updated: 1:08am GMT 11/02/2007

Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth’s climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

How cosmic rays could seed clouds diagram

High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate.

The controversial theory comes one week after 2,500 scientists who make up the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change published their fourth report stating that human carbon dioxide emissions would cause temperature rises of up to 4.5 C by the end of the century.

Mr Svensmark claims that the calculations used to make this prediction largely overlooked the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover and the temperature rise due to human activity may be much smaller.

He said: “It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds.

“This has not been taken into account in the models used to work out the effect carbon dioxide has had.

“We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted.”

Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years’ research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. This week he will also publish a fuller account of his work in a book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.

A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

They hope this will prove whether this deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate their ideas about how global warming occurs.

Mr Svensmark’s results show that the rays produce electrically charged particles when they hit the atmosphere. He said: “These particles attract water molecules from the air and cause them to clump together until they condense into clouds.”

Mr Svensmark claims that the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth changes with the magnetic activity around the Sun. During high periods of activity, fewer cosmic rays hit the Earth and so there are less clouds formed, resulting in warming.

Low activity causes more clouds and cools the Earth.

He said: “Evidence from ice cores show this happening long into the past. We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years.

“Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man’s impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted.”

Some climate change experts have dismissed the claims as “tenuous”.

Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims.

Mr Harrison said: “I have been looking at cloud data going back 50 years over the UK and found there was a small relationship with cosmic rays. It looks like it creates some additional variability in a natural climate system but this is small.”

But there is a growing number of scientists who believe that the effect may be genuine.

Among them is Prof Bob Bingham, a clouds expert from the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils in Rutherford.

He said: “It is a relatively new idea, but there is some evidence there for this effect on clouds.”

Published in: on February 12, 2007 at 2:22 am  Leave a Comment  

YOU WILL FACE ETERNAL DAMNATION!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

The Chilling Stars is published by Icon. It is available for £9.89 including postage from The Sunday Times Books First on 0870 165 8585

Published in: on February 12, 2007 at 2:21 am  Leave a Comment  

RECANT!

 http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070206/NEWS01/70206001/1002

Del. scientist’s view on climate change criticized
Ties to big oil, industry-funded lobbies draw fire

WILMINGTON, Del. — David Legates is skeptical of global warming data.

A Delaware scientist’s contrarian stand on global warming and climate change has earned him national attention in a series of critical reports — including some that lump his views in with industry-backed disinformation campaigns.

The controversy surrounding Delaware State Climatologist David R. Legates and other climate change skeptics peaked last week with the publication of an updated summary report on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Paris.

Shortly before the Paris climate change report emerged, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a study listing Legates among several scientists it described as “familiar spokespeople from ExxonMobil-funded organizations” that have regularly taken stands or sponsored reports questioning the science behind climate change warnings.

“I certainly think that Legates is a good example of someone who has chosen, for whatever reason, to have much of his work sponsored indirectly by ExxonMobil,” said Seth Shulman, primary author of the Union of Concerned Scientists report.

“In these cases, these people are often putting out information as the ‘state climatologist,’ whereas it’s really at best an incomplete accounting of their affiliation,” Shulman said.

ExxonMobil, which posted a record $39.5 billion profit last year, was accused by UCS of funneling $16 million to advocacy groups over a seven-year period in an effort to “confuse the public on global warming science,” including some groups that have worked closely with Legates or other climate change critics.

ExxonMobil has since branded the claims as “deeply offensive and wrong,” and described its position on climate change as “misunderstood.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its fourth report described human-contributions to higher global temperatures as “unequivocal,” and warned that rising seas and shifting climates were likely.

Legates, a University of Delaware professor, has criticized the panel’s previous summary reports as offering “a lot of misinformation,” despite the work by thousands of scientists from dozens of nations worldwide who teamed to produce the document.

Legates, who has referred to himself as a contrarian in public, could not be reached Monday. He has confirmed serving in various unpaid roles with groups that question global warming science, including as an adjunct scholar for the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank.

Although Legates holds the title of Delaware State Climatologist, Gov. Ruth Ann Minner’s office said that it had no direct role in the selection. The University of Delaware also supported the appointment, but has no direct oversight. Minner and the university both signed a four-way acknowledgement of the position.

Others around the country, meanwhile, have asked for a closer look at Legates’ role in the debate over global warming.

California’s attorney general last year asked a federal judge to force automakers to disclose their dealings with climate change skeptics, including Legates, in a dispute over greenhouse gas limits for new cars. General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers are defendants in that suit.

“The climate skeptics have played a major role in spreading disinformation about global warming,” California Attorney General Bill Lockyer wrote.

The request included a quote from the book “The Heat is On,” by former reporter and author Ross Gelbspan: “The tiny group of dissenting scientists have been given prominent public visibility and congressional influence out of all proportion to their standing in the scientific community on the issue of global warming.”

Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace and other organizations have cited Legates’ ties to several groups that have supported or emphasized skeptical stands on climate change, while they also received regular contributions from ExxonMobil. Those organizations include the National Center for Policy Analysis, which has received about $421,000 from ExxonMobil, and the George C. Marshall Institute, which received $630,000.

Both groups have published work by Legates, and Legates has reported working as an adjunct scholar for the National Center for Policy Analysis. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which also once listed Legates as an adjunct scholar, received more than $2 million from ExxonMobil at a time when the company was publicly fighting climate change policies.

During a speech last July at an event sponsored by the conservative Heritage Foundation, Legates described some claims about warming and climate shifts as “overblown,” although he said that he was not disputing scientists whose work led to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

“I think in general there’s very much of a disagreement,” Legates said at the time.

Washington State Climatologist Philip Mote, who generally agrees with the panel’s findings, said that few scientists disagree that the planet is warming, and said that an “inclusive and exhaustive” study found that humans “very likely” contributed to the change.

“It’s pretty much the same eight or 10 people any time you see a skeptical point of view,” Mote said. “It’s pretty certain that it’s going to be one of those folks.”

But Mote also said that scientists who work on behalf of environmental groups also should have to disclose their backing.

“I don’t know what number of scientists have accepted money from environmental groups to grind their ax, but I believe it’s more than the eight or 10 listed in the UCS report.”

Last year, Legates wrote a “policy report” for the National Center for Policy Analysis. It was released at about the same time as Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The center’s paper questioned several cornerstones of the argument supporting links between human activities and global warming.

“The complexity of the climate and the limitations of data and computer models mean projections of future climate change are unreliable at best,” Legates wrote. “In sum, the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21st century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change.”

Attention to Legates’ views increased in Delaware when he disputed arguments used to support Delaware efforts to control greenhouse gases as one of several authors in a “friend-of-the-court” brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Competitive Enterprise Institute filed the brief.

Virginia state climatologist Patrick Michaels, who received a $100,000 contribution from a Colorado electric cooperative that supported Michaels’ labeling of climate change supporters as “alarmists,” was another co-author on the brief.

Published in: on February 7, 2007 at 7:57 pm  Leave a Comment