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  


Criminal code raises fear over EU powers

By George Parker in Brussels and Nikki Tait and Michael Peel in London

Published: February 7 2007 02:00 | Last updated: February 7 2007 02:00

For eurosceptics, the European Court of Justice ruling in September 2005 was like giving a child a loaded gun. It opened the way for the European Union to designate a new class of pan-European crimes, and how they should be punished.

In Britain there was an outcry. In future decisions taken in Brussels could be applied to the British courts, denying parliament the right to determine what constituted a crime and levels of sentencing.

Concerns grew when the European Commission interpreted the ruling as being far wider than the case at issue: environmental crime. It produced a list of offences it believed should also be covered by the new rules, including counterfeiting, money laundering and computer hacking.

The Commission’s decision this week to create common criminal rules for environmental crimes is seen by some as a sign that Brussels will take full advantage of the court ruling to stealthily advance EU powers.

Franco Frattini, the EU’s justice commissioner, is said by aides to be fully aware that the court has handed him a powerful legal weapon, but it is one that he will use with restraint.

“Member states are concerned about sovereignty on this issue and that was made very clear by justice ministers in 2005 after the court ruling,” said one of Mr Frattini’s aides.

He points to the fact that in the 18 months since the ruling, Mr Frattini has only acted to create common criminal standards in two areas: counterfeiting and now environmental crime.

“We don’t see this as the beginning of a European criminal law or as a mandate to start writing a European criminal code,” said a senior EU official.

But what is to stop zealous Brussels officials fulfilling the Napoleonic tendencies often ascribed to them by eurosceptics and laying down the law to member states?

The first limit was applied by the European court, which said the EU could only use criminal law to achieve its objectives when it could show that “effective, proportionate and dissuasive” penalties were essential to combating serious environmental offences.

In many cases where the EU makes law, member states may already apply criminal sanctions across the board. However, in cases – like environmental crime – where some countries only apply civil penalties, the Commission may be tempted to act to bring consistency.

Secondly, any attempt to designate such a euro-crime would still have to be approved by a qualified majority of EU member states and the European parliament. Mr Frattini has promised he would only make proposals in this area if he was already sure of widespread support.

Last night British lawyers said the 2005 European Court ruling did not appear to have had any significant practical consequences.

But the sceptics argue that these are early days. They fear that in time Brussels might forget the court’s reminder that as a general rule “neither criminal law nor the rules of criminal procedure fall within the Community’s competence”.

Published in: on February 7, 2007 at 7:55 pm  Leave a Comment  


Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff

06:51 AM PST on Wednesday, February 7, 2007


In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.

Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.

KGW photo


Hundreds of scientists last Friday issued the strongest warning yet on global warming saying humans are “very likely” the cause.

“Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations,” Taylor asserts.

Taylor has held the title of “state climatologist” since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.

His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon’s policies.

So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor’s contradictions interfere with the state’s stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.

“He is Oregon State University’s climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon’s climatologist,” Kulongoski said.

Taylor declined to comment on the proposal other than to say he was a “bit shocked” by the news. He recently engaged in a debate at O.M.S.I. and repeated his doubts about accepted science.

In an interview he told KGW, “There are a lot of people saying the bulk of the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities and I don’t believe that’s true.” He believes natural cycles explain most of the changes the earth has seen.

A bill will be introduced in Salem soon on the matter.

Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it’s important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor. He denied this is targeted personally at Taylor. “Absolutely not,” Avakian said, “I’ve never met Mr. Taylor and if he’s got opinions I hope he comes to the hearing and testifies.”

Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change.

The Governor says, “I just think there has to be somebody that says, ‘this is the state position on this.'”

Published in: on February 7, 2007 at 7:48 pm  Leave a Comment  


Ten years left to avert catastrophe

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Published: 02 February 2007


For the past six years, more than 2,000 scientists from around the world have been writing the most definitive and up-to-date assessment of climate change. It is the fourth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since it was set up by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation in 1988.

The first volume of this assessment – called Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis – will be published today at a meeting in Paris. It will be followed later in the year by two more volumes concerned with what we can expect this century in terms of climate change effects, and what we can do to minimise the impact that those effects will have on our way of life.

It is clear from the draft version of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report on the science of climate change there is little doubt that global warming is a reality, and increases in the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide over the past 250 years are largely responsible.

There are still many uncertainties surrounding the issue of climate change, but these uncertainties should not be allowed to cloud the facts. The first is that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increases in average global temperatures are higher than at any time over the past 650,000 years – and we know one can exacerbate the other.

It is also virtually certain that the burning of fossil fuels such as coal is responsible for the observed rise in carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas in terms of global warming.

The IPCC has therefore concluded that the global warming we have observed in recent decades is the likely result of human activity.

The IPCC will point out that 11 of the 12 warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 1995. It expects global temperatures to rise by a further 3C by 2100.

Today’s report is also expected to warn that sea levels will continue to rise this century, and the century after that, whatever we do to curb carbon dioxide levels. This is because of the inherent inertia of the climate system – the oceans contain about 1,000 times more heat than the atmosphere and so they respond more slowly to changes in global temperature.

If we want to avoid catastrophic increases in sea levels we must attempt to limit the melting of the giant ice sheets off Greenland and west Antarctica.

If one or both of the ice sheets disintegrate, sea levels would rise disastrously to inundate most of the major cities of the world as well as low-lying and densely populated countries such as Bangladesh.

Many scientists believe that we have about 10 years left to enact policies that will curb dangerous climate change.

Published in: on February 6, 2007 at 5:05 pm  Leave a Comment  



 Skating has been banned on the melting ice of Beijing’s lakes, trees are blossoming early and people are shedding their heavy clothes as China experiences its warmest winter on record.

The temperature in the capital hit 16 degrees Celsius (60 degrees Fahrenheit) on Monday, far above the historical average of just below freezing for this time of year and the highest since records were first compiled in 1840.

The head of the Beijing Municipal Observatory, Guo Hu, said the record high was part of a consistent trend this winter, while state-run media reported similar phenomena across the country.

“In January and February, Beijing experienced its highest temperatures in 167 years,” Guo told AFP on Tuesday.

“Beijing has basically seen warmer winters from the late 1980s. This is due to the influence of global warming.”

At Qianhai Lake, normally frozen solid at this time of year, local merchant Chen Chuanyang lamented the early start to spring after authorities called a halt to skating due to the ice melting earlier than usual.

Chen hires out skates in the winter but on Friday — when the skating ban was imposed — he was forced to move over to his summer job driving pedicabs.

“I’ve had to switch early but there are no customers for that either,” he said.

Aside from the early ban, the China Daily newspaper said magnolia trees in Beijing had already started blossoming as conditions in the city resembled a balmy day more commonly seen in April.

Other reports flooded in on Tuesday showing the impact of global warming across the nation.

January-December average temperatures were the highest in 56 years in both the eastern province of Jiangsu and the remote western region of Xinjiang, 3,000 kilometres (1,800 miles) apart, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

The mercury in the normally frigid far northeastern province of Heilongjiang had also hit 40-year highs and 300,000 people were suffering from a drought in Shaanxi province after January rainfall was 90 percent below average, it said.

The accounts of an overheated China came less than a week after a stark United Nations report was released warning that climate-changing gases were having a significant impact on global warming.

The report said Earth’s average surface temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees by 2100.

China’s top meteorologist and one of the main authors of the report, Qin Dahe, told a press conference on Tuesday that China’s unusually warm winter and other extreme recent weather bore the hallmarks of global warming.

Qin, the head of the China Meteorological Association, said China would experience more years like 2006, when it was hit by some of the worst typhoons and droughts in decades.

China is one of the world’s biggest emitters of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, which is released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels.

About 70 percent of China’s energy comes from burning coal, and there are plans to dramatically increase production as the energy demands of the nation’s fast-modernising population of 1.3 billion people continue to soar.

China built 117 government-approved coal-fired power plants in 2005 — a rate of roughly one every three days, according to official figures.

However, China’s government reiterated Tuesday its position that the responsibility for climate change rested with developed countries.

“You need to point out that climate changes are the result of the long-term emissions of the developed countries,” foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said.

Published in: on February 6, 2007 at 5:04 pm  Leave a Comment  


Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn’t occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, “State of Fear” he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky’s book “Yes, but is it true?” The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky’s findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky’s students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at

Published in: on February 6, 2007 at 5:01 pm  Leave a Comment  



Definition:  Cannot be sustained.


“We cannot continue to drive gas guzzlers,” she said “They are absolutely unsustainable. I completely applaud measures that try to tax them off our roads.”

Published in: on January 31, 2007 at 1:26 pm  Leave a Comment  


London suburb to charge drivers parking fees based on emissions

Jan 30 2:33 PM US/Eastern


LONDON (AP) – Residents of a suburban London district will soon pay annual parking fees based on how much carbon dioxide their cars emit, penalizing owners of gas guzzlers.Richmond council west of the capital agreed on Monday to levy a sliding scale of charges based on emissions, meaning the biggest polluters will pay 300 pounds (almost C$700) a year for the privilege of parking outside their homes.

The charges, which will come into force in May, have sparked debate among environmental groups claiming victory against road pollution and car owners alleging unfair treatment.

Climate change is the defining issue of our age – it is clear that we must all change our behaviour to combat its effects,” said Serge Lourie, leader of Richmond Council. “For our council this is just the first step in a long process that will see us bring forward policies to move our borough and council to lower carbon emissions.”

Nine other councils, including that of central London, have expressed an interest in similar plans, Lourie said.

Cars with smaller engine sizes will receive a 50-per-cent discount on the current $230 cost of a parking permit. Cars with larger engines will have to pay higher prices.

Range Rover owner Sarah Adams, 35, who lives in Richmond, said her family shouldn’t have to pay extra just because she drives a big car.

“It’s really unfair we’re being penalized to park them,” she said. “I’ve got two kids and a dog and it’s a practical car for us.”

Nigel Morris, 39, a salesman, said drivers of big cars deserve to pay more.

“They pollute the streets and I think people use them as unnecessary status symbols,” he said.

Other critics of the proposal agreed they were punitive measures that would hit the pockets of families and low-income groups.

Environmental groups supported the move but called for further measures to be taken. Emily Armistead of Greenpeace said it was a major step toward getting fuel-sapping vehicles off the road.

“We cannot continue to drive gas guzzlers,” she said “They are absolutely unsustainable. I completely applaud measures that try to tax them off our roads.”

Published in: on January 31, 2007 at 1:23 pm  Leave a Comment  



Published in: on January 30, 2007 at 8:10 pm  Leave a Comment  


‘Inconvenient Truth’ Producer Pens Kids’ Global Warming Text
By Randy Hall Staff Writer/Editor
January 30, 2007

( – Move over, Chicken Little. A children’s book planned for release in September is an attempt to “fill the minds of children with ‘sky-is-falling’ global warming hysteria,” a Republican senator warns.Copyright Scholastic (2007)

The producer of former Vice President Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” is hard at work on a new project: writing a book to help school kids “understand why global warming happens.”

Scholastic, Inc. – one of the world’s largest publishers of children’s books, including the “Harry Potter” series – announced Monday that its Orchard Books imprint “has acquired world rights to ‘The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming’ by Laurie David and Cambria Gordon, scheduled for publication in September 2007.”

“Written for ages 8 and up, ‘The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming’ is the comprehensive resource young readers can look to for understanding why global warming happens and how we can work together to stop it,” Scholastic said.

“Irreverent and entertaining, and packed with essential facts and suggestions on how to effect change, ‘Down to Earth’ offers a message of hope,” it said in a release.

Scholastic called the book “important” and noted it was co-authored by David, a producer of Gore’s documentary.

According to the publisher, David has also produced an HBO documentary on global warming entitled “Too Hot Not to Handle” and served as the founder of the Stop Global Warming Virtual March, with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, David – the wife of comedian Larry David – was instrumental in convincing Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes to attend a lecture by Gore and then air an hour-long special entitled “The Heat Is On: The Case of Global Warming” on the Fox News Channel last November.

Gordon, David’s co-author of the children’s guide, is described by Scholastic as “an active environmentalist and a former award-winning advertising copywriter who now pursues children’s writing full-time.”

In an effort to “underscore the company’s ongoing commitment to responsible environmental stewardship,” text pages in the new book “will be printed on paper that contains 100 percent post-consumer waste fiber that is FSC [Forest Stewardship Council]-certified, using soy inks,” the company noted.

Along with announcing the new book, Scholastic said in its release that “the company is joining with the Rainforest Alliance to further strengthen the company’s sustainable paper procurement practices, establishing a policy that will have goals for the use of FSC-certified papers and that will reinforce the company’s commitment to post-consumer waste (PCW) fiber.”

“As a company committed to educating and caring for children and ensuring a safe environment in which they can learn and grow, Scholastic has a long record of environmentally sound policies and practices,” said Beth Ford, senior vice president of Global Operations and IT for the company.

“We look forward to working with the Rainforest Alliance to make even greater strides in protecting the environment today and for future generations,” Ford said.

According to the company website, “Scholastic is the largest publisher and distributor of children’s books in the world” and has “over $2 billion in revenues.”

“Through its unparalleled distribution businesses, Scholastic Trade, Scholastic Book Clubs, Scholastic At Home and Scholastic Book Fairs, the company reaches over 35 million children, 40 million parents and nearly every school in the U.S.,” the website notes.

“Scholastic publishes more than 500 new hardcover, paperback and novelty books each year,” including the Harry Potter series, Captain Underpants, Clifford The Big Red Dog and I Spy.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, told Cybercast News Service Monday that David’s book isn’t the first to try and tell children about global warming.

Last year, the United Nations Environment Program published “Tore and the Town on Thin Ice,” a children’s book about a young boy in an Arctic village who loses a dog sled race because he crashes through thinning ice supposedly caused by manmade “greenhouse gas” emissions.

Inhofe said he also found it interesting that Scholastic made the announcement regarding David’s book just before the United Nations is set to release a major study on climate change.

“It appears that Laurie David is joining the United Nations in aiming its global warming propaganda at children,” the senator said.

“Having failed for nearly three decades to convince the American people and their leaders to jump on the global warming alarmism bandwagon, David and the U.N. are trying to fill the minds of children with ‘sky-is-falling’ global warming hysteria,” Inhofe said.

Published in: on January 30, 2007 at 8:09 pm  Leave a Comment