Debunking Breakthrough Institute’s attacks on Obama, Gore, and top climate scientists

Posted on  

"Debunking Breakthrough Institute’s attacks on Obama, Gore, and top climate scientists"

The Breakthrough Institute (TBI) has dedicated the resources of their organization to trying to kill prospects for climate and clean energy action in this Congress and to spreading disinformation about Obama, Gore, Congressional leaders, Waxman and Markey, leading climate scientists, Al Gore again, the entire environmental community and anyone else trying to end our status quo energy policies, including me (see “Memo to media: Don’t be suckered by bad analyses from the Breakthrough Institute” and “Will America lose the clean-energy race? Only if we listen to the disinformers of The Breakthrough Institute“).  Now they are embracing and defended those who deny the reality of climate science.

This year TBI founders Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger published a string of factually untrue, egregious statements in an essay titled:  “The Green Bubble:  Why environmentalism keeps imploding.”  The biggest whopper:  “It has become an article of faith among many greens that the global poor are happier with less and must be shielded from the horrors of overconsumption and economic development-never mind the realities of infant mortality, treatable disease, short life expectancies, and grinding agrarian poverty.”  No one in the environmental movement believes that, but it is a right-wing fantasy of the “greens.”  Robert J. Brulle, Professor of Sociology and Environmental Science, Drexel University utterly debunks this essay (see below) and writes of this quote, “Who or what environmental group has ever said anything of this nature?  This statement is an out-and-out fabrication.  One wonders if there are any fact-checkers at The New Republic.

They misrepresent Al Gore’s entire thesis and worldview:

Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, like Silent Spring, was considered powerful because it marshaled the facts into an effective (read: apocalyptic) story”¦..

In promoting the inconvenient truth that humans must limit their consumption and sacrifice their way of life to prevent the world from ending, environmentalists are not only promoting a solution that won’t work, they’ve discouraged Americans from seeing the big solutions at all.

Yes, that’s right, they are even attacking the Rachel Carson who died decades ago after helping launch the modern environmental movement!

And no, Gore doesn’t believe nor has he written anything like that as I explain here.

So I just wanted to collect in one place some responses to set the record straight and to defend the reputation of the many, many scientists and environmentalists and leading political figures that they routinely attack:

The rest of this post focuses on how TBI and its founders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus are spreading falsehoods about President Obama and publishing very bad analyses designed to push their anti-climate-action, anti-environmental agenda.  In particular, we’ll see how just how hypocritical TBI is — how desperate are they to sell out their principles in order to attack President Obama.  I’ll end with Brulle’s debunking of the TNR essay that George Will so loved.

Shellenberger and TBI’s Jesse Jenkins have just published “Climate Bill Analysis, Part XII: CBO Projects Waxman-Markey Would Cut Cumulative Emissions by Just 0.5% Through 2020,” which claims “In the first projections from a government agency of the likely impacts of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the legislation will cut cumulative emissions in supposedly capped sectors of the economy by just 0.5% through 2020.”

Rubbish.  The CBO found that cumulative emissions reduction from 2012 to 2020 in capped sectors would be more than 8% and that emissions reductions in 2020 would be nearly 12%.  I’ll have more to say later on CBO’s analysis, which I am quite certain underestimates actual domestic emissions reductions (and overestimates the use of offsets).  But TBI’s analysis is utterly wrong.

First let me discuss TBI’s absurd lies about Obama.  And I use the word “lies” here quite deliberately — although it is a strong word even for the blogosphere — since TBI certainly understands that they are lying, as you’ll see.  Indeed, attacking leaders like Obama, Gore, Waxman, the green groups, and Tom Friedman by twisting their words or misrepresenting what they have said is standard operating procedure for TBI (see here).

Many people in the climate community, including me, received a press call notification today of a “Telephone Briefing on New Quantitative Analyses of Waxman Markey climate legislation” featuring Jenkins and Nordhaus, which included this brazen lie:

Supporters of the legislation tout its $1 billion investment in clean energy R&D “” that’s one-fifteenth of what President Obama promised, and one-thirtieth of what energy scientists said in an open letter last year would be needed.

That is perhaps the single most hypocritical smear that The Breakthrough Institute has ever made in its long history of pushing disinformation.  Let me explain how BTI has utterly flip-flopped on one of their supposedly core beliefs in order to create the impression that Waxman-Markey fails to deliver on a core promise by Obama during his campaign.  What you will see is that BTI in fact has no core beliefs whatsoever — only a single-minded quest to trash Waxman-Markey and all those who support it, including the President.  And as I’ve noted, they need W-M to fail, otherwise all their claims that the environmental movement keeps imploding would be seen by everyone as the sham that it is.

Let’s start with exactly what Obama actually promised during the campaign in his “New Energy for America” plan:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will strategically invest $150 billion over 10 years to accelerate the commercialization of plug”in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, encourage energy efficiency, invest in low emissions coal plants, advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid.  The plan will also invest in America’s highly”skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world.

So this was NEVER $15 billion a year in clean energy R&D narrowly defined as TBI would have you believe.

Further, the stimulus bill Obama signed included $71 billion for clean energy programs plus $20 billion in clean energy tax incentives (for details, see “Progressives, Obama keep promise to jumpstart clean energy, economy“).  So that one bill takes Obama 60% of the way to meeting his entire 10-year goal by itself. And of course Obama has begun to aggressively increase clean energy R&D in his annual budget proposals — and plans to do much more (see Obama vows “we will exceed [R&D] level achieved at the height of the space race”).

Finally we have Waxman-Markey aka The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). As the authors of the bill explain in their recent summary (see here):

ACES invests over $190 billion through 2025 in clean energy and energy efficiency programs.

So from 2012 through 2025, the bill invests more than $190 billion in clean energy research and development and demonstration and deployment programs, which just happens to come to nearly $14 billion a year.

So Obama delivers on his promise.  And TBI is well aware of the fact that Obama’s promise was research and development and demonstration and deployment — not just R&D, as you’ll see.

How hypocritical is TBI — how desperate are they to sell out their principles in order to trash President Obama?

Consider what Jesse Jenkins, Climate & Energy Policy Director at TBI, wrote on this very blog one year ago (here, emphasis added):

You are consistently setting up a false dichotomy between R&D and deployment. President Bush may promote that same dichotomy himself, but the Breakthrough Institute does not.

Breakthrough’s policy paper, Fast Clean Cheap argues for at least a $30 billion/year public investment in research, development and deployment, and I think we’d agree that deployment deserves the largest share of that funds.

Yes, you read that right. One year ago, TBI said that they were pushing for research, development, and deployment — with deployment having the largest share.  Now that Obama is actually starting to deliver on that exact promise, TBI abandons the last of its core beliefs — that the single most important element of any climate bill must be a massive spending program on clean energy R&D and deployment — just so they can attack president Obama and this climate bill.

I urge anyone who thinks that TBI has a shred of intellectual consistency to go to that link and compare Jenkins’ words to what these guys are now pushing in their emails and discussions with the media and even their latest PowerPoint presentation attacking Obama and Waxman-Markey (here, slides 26-30).

And just for the record, it won’t surprise you to know that the open letter from energy scientists (from December 2007, not “last year”) calling for $30 billion a year in spending was NOT calling for that money to be spent just on R&D:

America should be ramping up to invest a minimum of $30 billion per year to develop, demonstrate, and stimulate the commercialization of a range of technologies and approaches that can provide affordable carbon-neutral energy and use that energy more wisely.

So, no, Obama isn’t providing “one thirtieth” of what those experts said would be needed.  In fact, he is attempting to deliver more than half of what they said would be needed — I say attempting because TBI has launched a full scale effort to stop Obama from delivering on the promise that they themselves once endorsed.   Moreover, the letter clearly says America “should be ramping up,” which is precisely what Obama is doing.

Frankly, almost every single piece of analyysis that is on their website right now is a similarly riddled with misstatements, flip-flops from previously held core positions, and incredibly bad analysis.  I simply don’t have the time to waste debunking every single piece of it, but if any journalist is still contemplating citing their work, feel free to contact me.

It’s no surprise that the most famous “journalist” who cites their work at length is an ultraconservative opponent of any climate action (see “The Audacity of Nope: George Will embraces the anti-environmentalism “” and anti-environment “” message of The Breakthrough Institute“).  In his article, Will gives a big wet kiss to their TNR essay, “The Green Bubble:  Why environmentalism keeps imploding.”

The essay is such a disinformation-filled anti-environmental screed, that I am reprinting a response by Robert J. Brulle, Professor of Sociology and Environmental Science, Department of Culture and Communications, Drexel University “” and a widely published expert on the environmental movement:

The New Conservatism or Ecological Romanticism:  A False Dichotomy

In their recent essay, “The Green Bubble”, Nordhaus and Shellenberger launch a long attack against the green movement in the U.S.  Based on a series of heroic misstatements, revisionist history, and unsubstantiated stereotypes, they construct an image of environmentalism based in liberal elite circles and searching for social redemption in premodern, aesthetic lifestyles.  Thus much of what passes for “green” activity comprises little more than symbolic gestures to define an “alternative” lifestyle.  Yet at the same time, environmentalists are also portrayed as dabblers in these bohemian lifestyles, floating in and out of aesthetic and consumerist roles.  Hence environmentalism takes the form of fads or bubbles that come and go.

N&S critique the presumed attachment of environmentalists to romanticist premodernist images of society and celebrate economic modernization, along with the growing affluence, individualization, and freedom that this social process creates.  The answer to ecological issues for all, they imply, is to increase economic modernization across the globe.  For example, they note that “It is poverty, not rising carbon-dioxide levels, that make them (the poor) more vulnerable than the rest of us.”

One can easily critique their essay on a factual basis.  Note the sparse nature of their data sources and their lack of reference to any existing environmental histories.  They can maintain their interpretation of the U.S. environmental movement only by speaking in broad generalities, without citing specifics.  The manuscript is rife with historical inaccuracies and fabricated statements.  This essay is a political fiction in which facts are created to support their argument.  For example, one of the most egregious statements is that “it has become an article of faith among many greens that the global poor are happier with less and must be shielded from the horrors of overconsumption and economic development – never mind the realities of infant mortality, treatable disease, short life expectancies, and grinding agrarian poverty.”   Who or what environmental group has ever said anything of this nature?  This statement is an out-and-out fabrication.  One wonders if there are any fact-checkers at The New Republic.

While this lack of factual basis is an important critique of N&S’s argument, it is not the most central.  Essentially, they are attempting to dichotomize the environmental movement between hopeless anti-modern romantic yuppies, engaged in symbolic activities, and the sober modernists (exemplified by themselves) who celebrate and promote economic expansion as the only real way to address environmental degradation.  The space created by this dichotomy only allows for “responsible” environmentalism, based on economic modernization, and irresponsible, premodern romanticism, and eliminates all other possibilities.  Thus the essay seeks to paint environmentalism with a universal brush, and delegitimate the entire movement.

The core problem with this analysis is that we are held between two competing and rigid ideologies.  Apparently, in the view of N&S, the modern environmental movement has no ability to reason, or to calculate trade-offs between economic growth and environmental protection.  Neither, apparently, do N&S.  They are imprisoned within their own ideology of an uncritical and unreflexive modernization, without any corrective capacity based on democratic governance.  The idea of the Enlightenment was to subject our institutions, including both the market and the state, to collective democratic control.  Our society’s capacity to learn, and change is enabled through democratic discussion.  While economic modernization is one part of modernization, its uncritical application as the universal solution to whatever ails us is just another form of irrational ideology.  Nowhere do we see any critical perspective on the limitations of markets, or the false freedom of consumer choice that N&S celebrate.  How can one celebrate “individual choice” in a society permeated by a $300-billion-per-year needs-creation industry in the form of modern advertising?  The so-called freedom and individuality lauded by N&S merely amounts to a false choice among consumer lifestyles, not a real and informed participant in our own governance.

N&S can only maintain their simplistic dichotomy by basing their argument on typifications, and ignoring the more complex reality of environmentalism in the U.S.  Thus this is a false dichotomy.  Thus Nordhaus and Schellenberger deny the legacy of the Enlightenment, and revert to a blind faith in the market and a celebration of the status quo.

There is a third alternative.  Through democratic deliberations, we can define the shape of the world we wish to create, and then act collectively to realize it.  Dealing with environmental degradation, poverty, and exploitation is a difficult task.  But it will only be solved by looking truthfully at our situation, and rejecting easy and simplistic solution.  Ideological diatribes only make a hard task more difficult.

We are not trapped in either hopeless romanticism, or at the whim of market dynamics.  We can do much better than this.

Precisely.

« »

30 Responses to Debunking Breakthrough Institute’s attacks on Obama, Gore, and top climate scientists

  1. PaulK says:

    Regardless of whatever Breakthrough says, Waxman-Markey will not do what you want it to do. Its deficiencies are so many it would take me days to type them here. It is not just bad. It is worse than doing nothing.

    I hold no favor for Breakthrough. They are, like GE and Duke Energy and so many others, just another pig at the trough.

    “flip-flops from previously held core positions” is not really a valid criticism in this day and age. e.g. 100% auction.

    [JR: Gimme a break. A 100% auction was always the ideal, was never gonna happen to start with. Hardly a “core position” certainly not of mine.]

  2. Arthur Smith says:

    This confusion of R&D with development and deployment incentives is exactly the problem I had with S&N’s arguments last year. It’s not a flip-flop (except perhaps for Jenkins, who I thought was reasonable) but the same shtick they’ve been pushing all along. At least now there’s no question what they’re up to. Same class as Pielle Jr indeed!

  3. EricG says:

    PaulK:

    Dude, you can’t just write “It is worse than doing nothing.” and not explain why. Who the heck are you that I would take a statement like that at face value?

    Put up or shut up.

  4. ken levenson says:

    bets on Revkin quoting them in next week?

  5. Dano says:

    I’m with Arthur Smith. As I’ve said numerous times, their framing is fine, their solutioning leaves a lot to be desired.

    But let me also say again: this quibbling over a few degrees of course change that makes someone say 132º is utterly wrong when my 128º course is utterly the best way is tiresome and childish.

    And human, which is our problem.

    For years, we have known that we need to head somewhere between 120º and 135º for a societal course change to address these issues.

    This bopping of the head to take the wheel would be a good comedy routine if 6.6B people weren’t affected.

    Best,

    D

  6. PaulK says:

    Joe,

    The 100% auction was a rock solid tenet of President Obama. He said repeatedly that cap/trade could not work without it.

  7. Jay Alt says:

    The ACES bill began as a 100% auction but Obama wisely gave the sponsors the flexibility to horse trade. Waxman has done a great job of building support and moving it forward. The bill shifts over toward full auction after 2020. I would prefer a stronger bill now but it is essential to setup the framework. The particulars can be tightened later.

    I have visited Breakthrough and spent time reading Pielke’s Jr blogs. They aren’t just a few degrees off course. They have an erroneous sense of timing and direction.

  8. dhogaza says:

    I would prefer a stronger bill now but it is essential to setup the framework. The particulars can be tightened later.

    Establishng science as a basis for law is the most important thing at the moment.

    Remember, when the ESA was first passed, fence-sitters thought it just meant further protection for eagles and grizzlies. Most voting for it couldn’t imaginedthat it would affect songbirds, insects, fish etc (presumably because they couldn’t imagine the human activities could really impact such species sufficiently to trigger protection).

    Get it on the books. Push it. (hopefully) Expand it. To call it useless is politically naive.

  9. PaulK says:

    EricG,

    I am a fossil fuel replacement activist in Chicago. I have a long time interest in alternative energy and minimalist living. I am currently sponsoring energy and efficiency events in Chicago aimed at assisting the Beverly Arts Center. I am attempting to organize a watt- a- month replacing fossil fuel association whose purpose is to fund efficiencies and technology deployment in Habitat for Humanity homes.

  10. Anna Haynes says:

    My most recent humble foray into citizen journalism –
    Who funds Shellenberger’s Breakthrough Institute? (link)

    Does anyone know what Lotus Fund he’d be referring to? or why neither he nor Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors seems to be willing to say?

  11. Leland Palmer says:

    I’ve posted before that TBI is apparently a solely supported project of the Rockefeller family philanthropies, and that the Rockefeller historical roots as the controlling power behind the Standard Oil monopoly and today’s ExxonMobil offshoot of that power appear to be influencing their message.

    Following the money leads back to oil, in this case.

    Coincidence? You be the judge.

    It’s been pointed out, also, that the Rockefeller foundations have done lots of apparent good, and that Rockefeller foundation funding generally does not go to propaganda operations. Except, the Rockefeller foundations have admitted to acting as CIA fronts overseas, and generations of Rockefeller men who later went on to hold high positions in government like John J. McCloy got their start as Rockefeller Foundation trustees and officials.

    In this case, though, I think the general rule about Rockefeller foundation supported charities is being broken. TBI appears to me to be a rather subtle propaganda operation, whose purpose is to serve as an authority that other “news” outlets like the New York Times can quote in order to spread devisive and distorted information.

    Yes, it is subtly deceptive information. No, they have no core values. Their mission is to create distraction and discouragement, I think.

  12. Deep Climate says:

    Slightly off topic, I know, but here’s a post on Freeman Dyson’s co-operation with Canadian climate disinformation spinmeister Tom Harris (ex-APCO, now head of the International Climate Science Coalition). Of course, this aspect of the Dyson controversy was totally missed by the New York Times.

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/16/freeman-dysons-shadowy-canadian-connection/

    Actually, on further thought, maybe it’s not so far off the mark. The post also cites Dyson’s fawningly positive review to Nordhaus’s DICE modeling (which resulted in a policy recommendation of a ridculously low carbon tax without emission targets). Dyson appeared not to understand the shaky scientific assumptions behind Nordhaus’s work.

  13. @PaulK I’m also from Chicago, in Uptown.

    I don’t see the need for all the aggravation when all the dems have to do is let ACES die and have the EPA set up a program.

    The fact that the EPA could act NOW if it wanted to is never discussed. EPA is extending Congress a courtesy by allowing them to have a go at it with ACES, and has basically said that if no bill was passed by next May they would act.

    Given the EPA’s license to act I do think that passing ACES with the way the allowances are going to be given away is worse than doing nothing in Congress.

    In fact I cannot understand why the Dems did not point that out to all the industry people who were on capitol hill last month. If they were bitching to me about the auction system I would have told them they could accept the 80% auction in the original ACES bill or wait a year and see what kind of auction/allowance system the EPA has in mind. Snap.

    [JR: Contrary to popular misconception, it is quite difficult for EPA to use the endangerment finding and the Clean Air Act to reproduce the shrinking cap (plus trading system) of ACES. It would take many years and involve lots of litigation and could be gutted by the next president. This approach by its nature it would pretty much end the possibility of a global climate deal or even a deal with China.]

  14. jcwinnie says:

    Wait, wait, there is such a thing as serious journalism anymore?

  15. Sam says:

    Joe,

    Maybe you can take-up my effort of getting Schellenordhaus answer basic questions about their “policy”. As far as I can tell they’ve never answered the most basic questions, including:

    How much $$ is needed to reduce emissions to the levels necessary and when will we see those reductions?

    What price point do we need? How can we ensure that coal, oil and natural gas won’t drive their prices even lower to save their business?

    How would this revenue be raised, which services should we cut or would we just borrow the money?

    Who decides who gets this money? How do we ensure that it gets to the right people & not just the most powerful lobbyists — ie nuclear, clean coal & corn?

    I’ve been trying for awhile now to get answers to no avail–maybe with your high profile they’ll have to respond.

    [JR: Good luck. They won’t even say where all their funding comes from. See TPMCafe’s “Who funds Shellenberger’s Breakthrough Institute?]

  16. Leland Palmer says:

    So, they won’t say where the funding comes from.

    They’re a project of the Rockefeller Philanthropies (no longer connected to oil…yeah, right), but not funded by them?

    But they do get a huge amount of press.

    How do a couple of yappy guys who won’t disclose their funding get so much positive corporate press for their trouble making?

    The New York Times and other major media outlets routinely quote them without knowing what their funding sources are?

    WTF?

  17. EricG says:

    PaulK:

    It is not my intention to challenge your green credentials. I want to challenge your statement that ACES is “worse than doing nothing”. Most us on this blog agree that ACES is not as tight as we’d like it to be. But it’s the best that we can do right now, given the political realities. ACES establishes a framework that can and will be tightened in the future. It’s a huge step.

    Do you really think it would be better to do nothing?

  18. Anna Haynes says:

    A comment that might be apropos, from Ike Solem last month (link) –

    “Rockefeller Financial Services also does some very shady philanthropy, via Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisers. One of their projects is the Breakthrough Institute. The top investments of that well-diversified firm [presumably RFS – ed.] include Exxon and Chevron as well as banks like Citigroup that are heavily dependent on oil trading and coal-fired power.”

    (I’m passing the above on, not knowing how the cognoscenti – much less me – would go about evaluating the degree of connection between RPA and RFS. RPA is – at least ostensibly – run by Rockefeller family members; I haven’t checked RFS but would ass-u-me that they control it too.)

  19. Anna Haynes says:

    > very shady philanthropy

    I have to say though, RockPA’s Special Projects list doesn’t look shady to me. Here it is –
    * Hairy Cell Leukemia Consortium
    * Afghan Women Leaders CONNECT
    * The Breakthrough Institute
    * The Bridge Fund
    * Carbon Disclosure Project
    * Cultures of Giving Fund
    * Dominican Community Bridge Fund
    * The Earth Charter Fund
    * Gulf Coast Fund
    * The New York State Music Fund
    * Project Redwood
    * Strong American Schools
    * The Sustainable Endowments Institute
    * Unlocking the Power of Proxy
    * Yogyakarta Artists Relief Fund
    * Youth Justice Funding Collaborative

  20. PaulK says:

    EricG,

    I have tried twice to post my reasons why W-M is worse than nothing, but have been placed in moderation and deleted. Frustrating? Yes, but this is Joe’s blog and he has the right to shape the content however he sees fit.

  21. PeterW says:

    Shellenberger and Nordhaus remind me a lot of Bjorn Lomborg and Patrick Moore. They were “environmentalists” but changed their minds when they really looked into the science, or how environmentalists approached issues. Now because of their enviro street cred, they should be taken very seriously. At least, if you listen to the climate-deniers you’ll find out that these are really reasonable people, not your typical environmental nutjobs.

    It’s funny how this works. I used to joke with a friend who was working on an environmental issue with me, that we could get very rich if we just switched sides.

    This is a PR game and it’s getting old but unfortunately the media falls for it every time.

  22. If you could go into further detail about why the EPA solution won’t work I would appreciate it. I thought the recent decision settled things. Where are they going to appeal to it was decided by the Supreme Court?

    If the GOP for some reason sweeps to power in 2016 why wouldn’t they be able to abandon ACES just as easily through new legislation?

  23. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Anna Hayes-

    I have to say though, RockPA’s Special Projects list doesn’t look shady to me. Here it is –
    * Hairy Cell Leukemia Consortium
    * Afghan Women Leaders CONNECT
    * The Breakthrough Institute
    * The Bridge Fund
    * Carbon Disclosure Project
    * Cultures of Giving Fund
    * Dominican Community Bridge Fund
    * The Earth Charter Fund
    * Gulf Coast Fund
    * The New York State Music Fund
    * Project Redwood
    * Strong American Schools
    * The Sustainable Endowments Institute
    * Unlocking the Power of Proxy
    * Yogyakarta Artists Relief Fund
    * Youth Justice Funding Collaborative

    And it’s all tax free!

    What a great deal for the public, that the wealth that funds these worthwhile projects is perpetuated forever, tax free.

    Some of us notice, though, that if you control how the Trustees of these foundations vote the stock that capitalizes them, you effectively retain control of the corporations themselves.

    So, if for example the Rockefeller Philanthropy Associates retain control of how the RPA trustees vote their ExxonMobil stock, then this helps the Rockefeller family retain control of ExxonMobil, when they want to send Lee Raymond, for example, back to Texas with his 400 million dollar golden parachute.

    Pretty nice job, being a trustee. Collect a salary, of some sort, and just show up and vote once in a while.

    I wonder how you get a job like that?

    Maybe a little loyalty to your employers when voting the foundation stock might help?

  24. Stymer says:

    So, I’ve started hearing about a bunch of e-mails and documents that were supposed to be secret between some “climate scientists” that were posted on the internet and now prove that global warming is a giant scam. Does anyone know what the deal is with this one?

  25. Peter Staats says:

    Stymer: The cat is out of the bag. Emails hacked from the East Angia CRU reveal a longstanding conspiracy by climate scientists to cook the data to fit their conclusions, hide the data from independent analysis, suppress publication of dissenting views, delete emails with damaging information, and blacklist scientists who dispute their contentions. Download the emails and see for yourself.

  26. Jason says:

    I’m wondering: Are the posts 25 and 25 satire?

  27. Jason says:

    Er, i meant 24 and 25.

  28. Peter Staats says:

    Jason: As much as you would like my comment to be satire, in fact it reflects the opinion of a growing cadre of scientifically trained and knowledgeable people who can see through the AGW hoax. The science is far from “settled” – science is never settled and the claim that it is settled is just another indication of scientific ignorance.

  29. NormW says:

    Peter: Global warming exists no matter what the East Anglia emails say. The evidence is overwhelming. No will scientists agree on all aspects of science, obviously not.

  30. Jeff Kelley says:

    Norm: You are absolutely correct. Global warming does exist. The most recent episode began (with fits and starts) about 18,000 years ago at the beginning of the end of the last ice age. The question at hand is AGW (anthropogenic global warming). This is the assertion that humans are generating sufficient carbon dioxide to heat up our planet. Greenhouse gases allow our planet to maintain a temperature that is conducive to the existence of life (as we know it). Of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, water vapor represents 95% of the greenhouse effect. Total atmospheric carbon dioxide represents 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. Humans contribute 3.2% of the total atmospheric carbon dioxide. The greenhouse effect of this contribution is 0.12%.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    Climate scientists are guilty of breaking the first rule of science (besides just being statisticians instead of scientists)…you cannot approach a hypothesis seeking to prove your hypothesis. If you do, you WILL prove your hypothesis despite all of the evidence otherwise. An unbiased mind is critical in all scientific endeavors. Unfortunately for these tortured souls their blindness got politicized when governments recognized the potential of this global scam. Once this occurred, funding would cease without singing the party song. These great men would no longer be recognized at feasts held to celebrate their greatness. East Anglia is a failure that merely illustrates the depths that (even) scientists can sink when they forget they are human – and the evil that is possible when government gets involved. Science is NEVER determined by consensus.