NASA’s James Hansen on hacked emails: “The contrarians or deniers do not have a scientific leg to stand on. Their aim is to win a public relations battle, or at least get a draw, which may be enough to stymie the actions that are needed to stabilize climate.” top climate scientist was interviewed by Newsweek‘s Science Editor last week.  Sharon Begley talked to Hansen “on the eve of the publication of his first book, Storms of My Grandchildren, which he finished while recovering from treatment for prostate cancer and which will be published in December.”

SB:  Last week, someone leaked e-mails obtained by hacking into the server at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Activists who have long denied the reality of climate change  say they show that climatologists have engaged in a grand conspiracy to manufacture a case that global warming is occurring due to human activities. Do the hacked e-mails undermine the case for anthropogenic climate change?

JH:  No, they have no effect on the science.  The evidence for human-made climate change is overwhelming.

SB:  Do the e-mails indicate any unethical efforts to hide data that do not support the idea of anthropogenic global warming or to keep contrary ideas out of the scientific literature and IPCC reports?

JH:  They indicate poor judgment in specific cases. First, the data behind any analysis should be made publicly available.  Second, rather than trying so hard to prohibit publication of shoddy science, which is impossible, it is better that reviews, such as by IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences, summarize the full range of opinions and explain clearly the basis of the scientific assessment. The “contrarians” or “deniers” do not have a scientific leg to stand on.  Their aim is to win a public relations battle, or at least get a draw, which may be enough to stymie the actions that are needed to stabilize climate.

And here’s more from Hansen on the science:

SB:  Policymakers who deny the threat of climate change cite the research of Richard Lindzen of MIT and other scientists, who question the link between carbon dioxide and global warming””as the last head of NASA, Michael Griffin, also did. As long as there remains this scientific dispute, why should policy makers act?

JH:  These contrarians are not having much effect. None of the major countries are denying the problem anymore, though in the U.S. these contrarians are still widely heard, and when it comes to passing a bill in Congress they may still be an obstacle.

SB:  In the 1980s scientists worried about a doubling of pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide, to 550 parts per million. Then 450 started to look like a problem. Now you and others say that 350 is dangerous, and we’re already at 387. What did climatologists learn that caused them to lower the estimate of dangerous CO2 levels?

JH:  The new information came from observations of how the system is responding to 387ppm and to more detailed information on how earth responded in the past to different atmospheric compositions. For instance, we see that the ice sheets are not stable at 387ppm; the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass even with current warming. The Greenland ice sheet had been losing between 150 and 200 cubic kilometers a year in 2002, and now is losing almost 300 cubic kilometers a year. Antarctica had been losing less than 100 cubic kilometers a year, and is now losing more than 150, so it seems like we’re heading into a period of much more rapid ice sheet loss. Also, in the arctic we’ve lost 40 percent of the sea ice in the warm season, and that will soon be 100 percent. Mountain glaciers are retreating rapidly  and could be gone in 50 years. These are not model results but observations: 387ppm is already too high, and 450ppm will be far worse.

SB:  In Storms of My Grandchildren, you describe climate tipping points. What are some and why are they so dangerous?

JH:  Things like methane hydrates on the continental shelf and the tundra: as they warm up they release their methane [which is a greenhouse gas], which we’re already seeing in the tundra and elsewhere. Tipping points are so dangerous because if you pass them, the climate is out of humanity’s control: if an ice sheet disintegrates and starts to slide into the ocean there’s nothing we can do about that.

SB:  What caused you to move beyond research and become an outspoken advocate for addressing climate change?

JHThe realization that there was a gap between what had become clear scientifically and what policymakers knew. Then, when I wrote papers and gave talks on climate change, it became clear that the political system just didn’t want to react to this. Scientists have to help politicians connect the dots.

Yes, I skipped over what Hansen had to say about climate policy, which includes puzzling things like “What’s needed is putting a price on carbon, not cap-and-trade.”  He is a world-class expert on the science but not on the policy, and I’ve made my disagreements with him clear many times in the past (see here and here and here).

I’ll review Hansen’s disappointing book next week when it is out.  The science in the book is sensational, of course, but you can get most of that online (see links below).  What is the most disappointing about the book is not his policy suggestions, which we’ve seen many times now, but his surprisingly uninformed discussion of efficiency and renewables.

Hansen is not an energy expert, and while he can opine on energy matters all he wants, the fact is he and the rest of the climate science community has not yet succeeded in “Job One” — explaining the science clearly and persuasively to the public in the face of the well organized disinformation campaign.

My unsolicited advice to our top climatologist is to refocus your efforts at communicating the science — on which you are an unparalleled expert.

Related Posts:


20 Responses to NASA’s James Hansen on hacked emails: “The contrarians or deniers do not have a scientific leg to stand on. Their aim is to win a public relations battle, or at least get a draw, which may be enough to stymie the actions that are needed to stabilize climate.”

  1. mike roddy says:

    Of course Hansen is right about the science, but he’s also right about cap and trade and offsets. They didn’t work in Europe, becoming mostly a profit center for traders, which will be a lot more obscene in the US version. By including long term offsets, the climate bill is also perpetuating dirty coal plants for longer than even the market would have allowed.

    Putting a price on carbon and taxing fossil fuel companies fairly for both carbon and externalities is the most effective solution, as Hansen says. Carbon taxes also need to be applied to industrial forestry and inefficient buildings. You may disagree with him on this, Joe, but your notion that he should just stick to the science is a little presumptuous. I understand that passing any old climate bill is important, but we need to lay the groundwork to eventually do things right.

    I do agree that Hansen knows little about alternative energy solutions. This is where we need to depend on people with specific technical and management expertise.

  2. Mike says:

    “Of course Hansen is right about the science, but he’s also right about cap and trade and offsets. They didn’t work in Europe…”

    My impression from reading JR’s blog is that the EU trading system, while certainly far from perfect, has been effective at meeting the Kyoto targets:

    I agree that a carbon tax would be a simpler solution, but in order to hit specific emissions reduction targets, it would require future governments to adjust the price of carbon based on changing emission levels. I have little confidence in our political system’s ability to do that without succumbing to interest group pressure to lower the price or grant exemptions.

    Under cap and trade, we can just let the market set the price. And even if some polluters are initially given free permits, they still have an incentive to reduce emissions and sell the permits back onto the market.

  3. Chris Dudley says:


    I have to admit to being part of a group that has influenced Hanson on policy and particularly the carbon tax. I’m not active these days but I will point to some positive changes: less talk about polluting ocean sediments with liquid CO2 and a little more about biochar. My view on cap-and-trade is that it is largely equivalent to a carbon tax in that it is stupid about the nature of energy sources. The value of natural gas is not just reduced emissions relative to coal and oil which either trading or a tax capture, but also the reusablility of its infrastructure in a 100% renewable energy system that includes a carbon negative biochar effort and its domestic sourcing now. Price based approaches just don’t capture these aspects. Thus, we need to show that we are smart about the future. How do we do this at the lowest possible cost? Well, if we are going to decide winners an losers in a smart way rather than a price way, we should use rationing to cut oil and coal use since this will cut the price of these sources even as we get off of them.

    Hansen’s take on policy is that things need to move fast so that is why he wants something more than what is in the climate bill. Carbon tax theorists promise this. But, if you dig into the law, we already have the means to ration gasoline and regulate prices for coal so there is no real need to even have an argument. Invoke the standby gasoline rationing plan approved by congress in the eighties and get going now. It already has a ration trading white market built in so it you like trading, there you go. Establish price controls on coal so that most mines won’t be profitable and emission will fall. These are all tried and true American policies. It just takes leadership to get them moving.

  4. Ben Lieberman says:

    John Brody in today’s New York Times writes exactly the kind of article that might be expected: process oriented,and presenting the no-nothing camp as a group raising real concerns.

  5. JeandeBegles says:

    First, it is clearly out of the topic, but I have to inform you that a group of young students involved in Climate negotiations started a hungerstrike since november 6, until the end of the Copenhague conference.
    Their message is clear and loud (with our help): listen to the science, we have to stop global warming now, later it will be too late, we must be bold. The group is named Climate Justice Fast ( and is worth your time to know them. Could Joe issue an article about them?
    Back to hansen and carbon tax against cap and trade, from a french point of view. I agree with Mike. Of course Hansen is right on this topic, again (sorry, Joe). The carbon price is a much powerfull driver of our behaviour than the fancy CO2 quota that has no physical meaning, quota is pure general ledger. And repeating that the ETS is working is not enough to get it right.
    The ETS doesn’t reach the individual customer. The individual customer is the main (but not only) agent for cutting ghg emissions

  6. john says:

    mike roddy:

    Actually, cap and trade did work in Europe — and quite well.

  7. paulina says:

    Broder also does the AP one better in terms of nonsense.

    Yesterday, Joe noted that the AP’s characterization of the UEA independent review was erroneous. But Broder doesn’t care about such trifles, choosing instead to compound the error, writing:

    “The e-mail exchanges among several prominent American and British climate-change scientists appear to reveal efforts to keep the work of skeptical scientists out of major journals and the possible hoarding and manipulation of data to overstate the case for human-caused climate change.”

    Hm. “Overstate the case for human-caused climate change.” Where have I heard that before?

    Well, just yesterday the AP erroneously claimed that the independent review at UEA will be into “allegations that [Jones] overstated the case for man-made climate change.”

    That was midday.

    The *evening* AP article had quite a different message. The “overstating” language was put in a side bar:

    “Some bloggers claim the document shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming and have attempted to manipulate data.”

    And the evening lede no longer suggested that the investigation would focus on allegations that Jones overstated anything:

    “The chief of a prestigious British research center caught in a storm of controversy over claims that he and others suppressed data about climate change has stepped down pending an investigation, the University of East Anglia said Tuesday.”

    Compare midday lede:

    “Britain’s University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.”

    The evening article also contained information the midday article had missed entirely:

    “The university’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research Trevor Davies said the investigation would cover data security, whether the university responded properly to Freedom of Information requests, “and any other relevant issues.” The statement said the specific terms of the review will be announced later in the week.”

    Yet the midday article alleged (based on what?) an entirely different, single, investigation focus, using language that the subsequent article attributed to “some bloggers.”

    Language that Broder saw fit to use today. Wonder what blogger he got it from? Maybe he just got it from *Revkin’s* lede, way back on Nov 20?

    “No wonder the public is confused.”


    Is there an official AP correction notice?

  8. Tranche Demerde says:

    Discussion of the EU cap and trade scheme:

    from ABC (Australia) show, “Rear Vision”. The system is described as intended to have only modest results because otherwise it would not have been possible to enact it in the first place. Proponents now say no one can dismantle it because it is so entrenched, and it could be tightened and made more effective as political will materializes. Opponents point to theoretical problems and lack of significant results so far.

  9. Aaron Lewis says:

    Cap and trade assumes that there is some permissible level of carbon emissions that is economically acceptable. That is, the economic value of some emissions would be greater than the economic cost to society. Under the GCM runs offered in the IPCC 2007 report, this would be the case, and cap and trade is the economically preferable approach.

    However, if climate change is more abrupt than expected from the information in the 2007 IPCC Report, then the cost to society for EVERY unit of carbon emission is greater than ANY economic benefit from the emission. In which case, a straight carbon tax is the economically preferable approach.

    The climate models are fundamentally flawed in the way they handle ice. Recent observations make it likely that changes in the world’s large ice sheets will be dramatically more abrupt than the literature published between 1995 and 2008 suggested.

    Current CO2 levels are near 390 ppmv and we need to get atmospheric levels below 320 ppmv BEFORE enough heat is accumulated in the oceans to VERY RAPIDLY melt the ice sheets. (The melt has already started. We need a desperate effort to avoid speeding that melt.) The cost of failing to do this is the loss of all of our coastal cities and infrastructure. Given that hard ceiling, what is the economically acceptable level of carbon emissions? Near zero! When to do we have to get to that level? Soon!

    Under these conditions, cap and trade is the wrong approach.

  10. SecularAnimist says:

    Aaron Lewis, may I offer one single word to reinforce your point about the most recent science showing the need for more urgent and rapid reductions than cap-and-trade may be able to achieve:


    Even in the worst-case scenarios, truly catastrophic sea level rise (e.g. such as would entail the evacuation of hundreds of millions of people from many major coastal cities) will likely take decades at least.

    On the other hand, North America might be struck by a decade-long, continent-wide, GHG-driven megadrought that would bring an abrupt end to North American agriculture — and famine for hundreds of millions of people — starting tomorrow.

  11. If Cap and and trade didn’t work in Europe why are they now eating our lunch?

    All the top wind and solar companies are European or – now Chinese:

    Cap and trade DID work in Europe. Tons of new stories every day Today’s evidence, Ford can make a 99 gram CO2 car for Europe (62 MPG) here gets 35 mpg.

    German Marshall Fund Study found it worked.Summary:

  12. Len Ornstein says:

    Jim Hansen knows quite a bit about alternative energy solutions! He’s been studying them for about 28 years, since his first AGW publication in Science.

    [JR: You wouldn’t know that from his book.]

    And his motivation is “as pure as the driven snow”.

    But, like the rest of us humans (and Joe Romm), he can make mistakes.

    Cap and Trade can only work with truly informed market players. As recently demonstrated by:

    Searchinger, T., Hamburg, S.P., Melillo, J., Chameides, W., Havlik, P., Kammen, D.M., Likens, G.E., Lubowski,R.N., Obersteiner, M., Oppenheimer, M., Robertson,G.P., Schlesinger, W.H., and Tilman, G.D. (2009) “Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error” Science 326: 527 – 528.;326/5952/527?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Searchinger&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT


    Ornstein, L. “Replacing coal with wood: sustainable, eco-neutral, conservation harvest of natural tree-fall in old-growth forests” (2009) Climatic Change 97: 439 – 447.

    CO2 footprint accounting errors will severely compromise both current Cap and Trade scenarios as well as Hansen’s Tax and 100% Refund proposal.

    This results because ‘bad’ biofuels, like corn-ethanol and palm-nut diesel, that capture less CO2 than the land cover they replace, have positive CO2 footprints. These should be TAXED rather than SUBSIDIZED (e.g., provided offsets). Otherwise, their use will induce deforestation with a vengeance!

    So instead of focusing on honest errors that individuals make, emphasis should be on conveying the most complete picture of the impacts of available options. Then, poorly informed governments may have a better chance of making the ‘right’ decisions about how to lower global risks to world economies and ecosystems.

  13. Tom Street says:

    Cap and trade could work if the cap is set low enough. But no cap will be set low enough to avoid severe future global warming. Talk about relative efficiencies of alternative approaches like taxation are irrelevant. Under our political system, that would not be set high enough.

    These are all theoretical and ultimately worthless discussions since congress will not mandate anything that is perceived to have a negative impact on economic growth and especially the fortunes of entrenched corporations, especially those who profit from the mining and use of coal.

    We know that coal needs to be phased out and Hansen calls for that. Any cap and trade worth its salt would end up doing that. That is why any cap and trade regime passed will not have much impact on emissions or coal use.

    The email saga is a bump in the road but ultimately not very meaningful because we were not going to get any serious climate change legislation anyway. If they can’t pass it with this congress, it will never be passed. In the next congress, the Dems will lose their 60 votes and will be serious weakened in the House of Representatives. It is now or never and Obama spends too much time bogged down in health care and war. Afghanistan is not critical to our long term survival. Global warming is, but look at the priorities.

    In any event, reason will not prevail. The deniers have their meat and will explot it to the fullest. They’ve got the better noise machine. The MSM is doing its usual job of poorly reporting this episode.

  14. D Denuto says:

    Hansen also does not at all understand the nature of unconventional resources. But his real problem is that he does not adequately address solutions. He says we need to “stop emitting carbon” but does not clearly state how in the world we can expect the world to do that. Often it seems that he would be happy to see massive numbers of people globally slip back into the stone just as they are beginning to emerge. Now that does not mean that they should follow the path that other nations took before them, but it does mean that it won’t happen without some attractive alternative paths being laid out…

  15. Dan B says:

    Tom Street at 13. and D. Denuto at 14;

    Agree with you both. Politics is good at addressing crises – ones that have occurred not crises that will occur.

    My own experience of attempting to convert a small home in a minority, lower middle class neighborhood to high efficiency and alternatives is a real head banger. There seem to be no consultants who know how to integrate solar hot water and forced air heat, or water storage and heat pumps…. Well they can for more than two years of my gross income – more than 1/3 of the value of the home.

    There are zero-interest loans available that become 12% – 20% interest after two years. Yeah right – zero-interest…. Been there.

    So why would minority and low-income folks be interested in alternative energy? These are the people who would most suffer under a Carbon / Greenhouse Gas tax. They’re already struggling to pay for heat, lighting, hot water, food, transportation, and clothing. And they can be easily frightened into voting. It happened in California with Proposition 86 and it will happen again as long as low income citizens are not factored into the political equation.

    I hope that Obama’s background as a community organizer gives him the perspective to include “everyone” in the benefits, particularly a hand up to people who are on the edge.

  16. M. Goodell says:

    The fact is, we are now at a point in time, that we can envision a fossil-fuel free future. Maybe not in the next 2-3 years, but definitely within the next 10 years. Yet, we are still hopelessly addicted to fossil fuels. Even more addicted to fossl fuels now, than we were in 1967 and 1973, when the Arabs and OPEC, reminded how addicted we are to THEIR oil.

    As the saying goes, “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

    Even if you are a climate change contrarian or denier, you should be in favor of kicking the fossil-fuel addiction, if only to protect your job, our economy and our country.

    Some of us were shocked to our senses by what the Arabs and OPEC did to our country, our citizens and our economy, by turning off our supply of their oil imports. Unfortunatey, fossl fuels still fuel our economy. Without the “lifeblood” that keeps our economy going, the patient gets sick, and ultimately dies.

    Imagine, back in 1973, when barely 40% of our nation’s oil supply came from OPEC, and how we – as a country, were dropped to our knees, when OPEC turned the oil off….. to today, when 60% of our oil is imported, and what would then happen to our country, if the country’s selling us

    The OPEC oil embargo of 1973 “shocked” our economy – but OPEC also did a good thing, as the oil embargo helped jump-start the great awakening of renewable energy technologies research and development, before there was any concern over climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.

    Today, we import about 60% of our oil from other countries. If we don’t kick the fossil fuel addiction in the name of climate change, let’s do it in the name of protecting our economy and our freedom.

    Today, biomethane, or “renewable natural gas” can replace fossil-fuel based natural gas. Biomethane is totally renewable, and actually removes carbon dioxide emissions fom the atmosphere, when you consider the life cycle of the organic waste feedstock used to produce the biomethane.

    Same with biomass gasification, we can take organic waste streams such as animal and farm waste, wood/forestry waste, sewage sludge and 60% of the waste going into our landfills, and transform this waste into “synthesis gas.” Synthesis gas also is a “carbon negative fuel.”

    And when you look at the success that Germany has had with solar, thanks to their “feed in tariff,” I have to wonder why we haven’t had Germany’s foresight? Especially when you compare their country’s solar radiation map – or more accurately, the “direct normal insolation” (DNI) map, to the DNI map for our country. If you do make the comparison, you will notice that Germany’s DNI map is all white, meaning very little solar energy potential for “harveting” the sunlight to convert it into useful energy…… compared with our country’s DNI map – which shows we are blessed with an abundance of solar energy “potential.” As we have significantly greater solar energy “potential” to farm the sunshine into useable energy than Germany has, and yet they are profiting and prospering from their investment in solar energy – for photovoltaics (PV) for making electricity, and solar thermal (for making hot water) – such as evacuated tube collectors – you have to wonder who is the “captain” of this ship here?

    Back in 2003, I was involved with the installation of what I believe is the first “Solar Trigeneration” energy system for a small office building of 5,000 sq. ft. “Solar Trigeneration” meaning that the office building derives 100% of its “cooling, heating and power” from the solar trigeneration energy system. To this day, this “Net Zero Energy Building” is operating at 12 noon or 12 midnite, without ANY connection to the electic grid, and never receives a utility bill…. and for you climate deniers and contrarians…. ZERO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS!

    Our nation needs a leader that recognizes if solar is working so well in Germany – with their minimal solar resource – then solar will
    work even better here.

    California initiated the call for “one million solar roofs.” Who will initate the call for 50 million solar roofs for our country, by the end of the next decade?

    We already have the renewable energy technologies needed to begin weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels. Where is the national willpower, vision and leadership when we need it? President Kennedy set our goal to send a man to the moon and return him safely, within a decade? Where is our “moonshot” speech for ending our addiction to fossil fuels? We have the technologies – we only need the courage and the will. I hope it doesn’t take another Arab Oil Embargo to provide the will. With 60% of our oil coming from other countries, the patient simply may not survive this kind of a shock.

    The end of fossil fuels is in sight, we can get there sooner, if we rally to the clarion call, and have a John Kennedy that leads the way.

    At the very least, having our country’s goal of ending our dependance on foreign fossil fuels within 10 years, should be a starting point that gets every climate change denier and contrarian – to come out from the “dark side” and into the light of truth and “American Prosperity.”

  17. D Denuto says:

    Dan B

    Actually, my point was not about the relatively rich “minority and low-income folks” in western nations. I am talking about the billions in China, India, etc. 10 years ago you go there and see thousands upon thousands of bicycles. Now you see fewer bicycles and more cars. And a billion more behind them waiting for their turn to move up. You think they care at all about the difference between 387 ppm and 450 ppm? Are they supposed to live their lives emitting no carbon? I like to see that happen, but I don’t see how and from what I read of Hansen, he doesn’t even think its a problem worth addressing. But I admit I don’t read much of him as I agree with most of his scientific assessment, etc…


  18. Leland Palmer says:

    Even Hansen is over-reacting to these e-mails, in my opinion.

    This is deliberate output of a paid network of climate deniers, deliberately out to screw up the Copenhagen talks.

    The real story here is that this cherry picked information from years of correspondence probably did not come from an unassisted private hacker.

    A private hacker would have had to comb through years worth of email files to find these apparently damning quotes. The software that the intelligence agencies use to monitor email traffic could have done this in a few minutes, maybe in a few seconds.

    So, this appears to me to likely be information from an intelligence service, likely leaked in collusion with the paid denier network funded ultimately by the fossil fuel industries.

    The size of this network is much larger than direct funding from ExxonMobil would suggest.

    From the Union of Concerned Scientists report from 2007:

    Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air

    How ExxonMobil uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science

    In 2005, the end use combustion
    of ExxonMobil’s products—gasoline,
    heating oil, kerosene, diesel products, aviation
    fuels, and heavy fuels—resulted in 1,047 million
    metric tons of carbon dioxide–equivalent emissions.
    6 If it was a country, ExxonMobil would
    rank sixth in emissions

    For example, the George C. Marshall Institute, a leading paid climate denier think tank, has received six hundred thousand dollars directly from ExxonMobil.

    But they have received something over six million dollars from a network of conservative foundations including the Scaife and Bradley foundations. This network of conservative foundations often funds the same organizations that ExxonMobil does, including the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and other leading denier organizations:

    Funding for the George C. Marshall Institute:
    Exxon Mobil Corporation $640,000
    Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation $3,590,303
    Sarah Scaife Foundation $2,785,000

    Funding for the American Enterprise Institute:
    Exxon Mobil Corporation $1,625,000
    Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation $~17,000,000
    Scaife Foundations $~8,000,000

    Funding for the Heritage Foundation:
    Exxon Mobil Corporation $460,000
    Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation $~14,000,000
    Scaife Foundations $~24,000,000

    To see that this network of conservative “charitable” foundations often fund climate denier think tanks in an apparently coordinated manner, go to the Media Matters Action Network, and do a few searches on this list of ExxonMobil funded think tanks in the Union of Concerned Scientists report:

    American Council for Capital Formation, Center for Policy Research
    American Council on Science and Health
    American Enterprise Institute
    American Friends of the Institute of Economic Affairs
    American Legislative Exchange Council
    Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
    Arizona State University, Office of Climatology
    Atlantic Legal Foundation
    Atlas Economic Research Foundation
    Cato Institute
    Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
    Centre for the New Europe
    Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
    Citizens for a Sound Economy Educational Foundation [became FreedomWorks]
    Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
    Competitive Enterprise Institute
    Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
    Consumer Alert, Inc.
    Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies
    Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
    Fraser Institute
    Free Enterprise Action Institute
    Frontiers of Freedom Institute
    George C. Marshall Institute
    Heartland Institute
    Heritage Foundation
    Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University
    Independent Institute
    Institute for Energy Research
    International Policy Network
    Lindenwood University
    Media Research Center
    Mercatus Center,
    George Mason University
    National Association of
    National Center for Policy
    National Center for Public Policy Research
    National Environmental Policy Institute
    Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
    Science and Environmental
    Policy Project
    The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc.
    Tech Central Station
    Weidenbaum Center, Washington University (formerly Center for the Study
    of American Business)

    In essentially all of their public statements, ExxonMobil is lying, in my opinion.

    They are funding a network of information laundering sites, and are doing so in concert with a much larger network of “charitable” foundations that support conservative causes including the opposition of climate change.

    This conservative “charitable: foundation network is a much larger, and much better funded network, as a few searches on Media Action Network shows – and it funds global warming denier information laundering sites in concert with ExxonMobil.

  19. Yes we need more fully qualified scientists that can communicate clearly to the public in a simple enough way so that they get it!

    Climate Science is complex and we need another Carl Sagan-like people that can illuminate the facts.

    Great article!

  20. Steve L says:

    I prefer a carbon tax to cap & trade. But compared to the rate of change we’ve seen since Kyoto, I’ll be happy with almost anything that can make any difference.