Fossil Fuel Companies Vow to Fight Climate Change

I was wondering, if manmade climate change isn't real, why did 10 of the largest fossil fuel companies feel it was necessary to make a vow to stop it? BG Group, BP, Eni, Pemex, Reliance, Industries, Repsol, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Statoil and Total all made pledges to reduce the level of carbon dioxide emissions and work towards greener energy sources. They specifically stated they were committed to working towards to goal of limiting global temperatures increases to 2 degrees Celsius.

The initiative is being written off by some as a public policy ploy. It is true these are the same companies that have funded denier organizations and have worked to obstruct initiatives to address the problem. However, we now have on record statements from these ten companies that manmade emissions are responsible for global warming and manmade climate change.

That, at least, is some progress

SO2 Decrease Not Responsible for Global Warming

One of the submissions to the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge was the claim that the Clean Air Act reduced SO2 emissions, leading to global warming. SO2 in the atmosphere is known to reflect sunlight and large emissions of this gas during volcanic eruptions has led to cooling episodes. The submitter, Mr. Burl Henry, posited the Clean Air Act was responsible for removing so much SO2 from the atmosphere that the result was an absence of global cooling. Thus, it was the absence of SO2, not the presence of CO2, that was the cause of the observed global warming.

I showed how Mr. Henry's major error was he only considered U.S. and European emissions in his claim without including emissions from other countries. When those other countries were included, you get periods where SO2 levels go down and the temperature goes up. But, you also get periods where SO2 levels go down and temperature also goes down. Further, there are periods where SO2 levels go down and the temperature can go up or down. In other words, there is no correlation in the overall picture between SO2 emissions over the long term and the temperature record.

However, this person was not satisfied. He not only resubmitted his claim (still wrong), but has continuously appeared with comments to the effect he still thinks his claim is correct. I think the graph below should dispel any thought at all about the correctness of his claim:

Source: Open Mind

This graph shows atmospheric SO2 levels for the last 2000 years. We can see the level sky-rocketed beginning in the mid-1800s and today is three to four times the historical average. Despite efforts to reign in emissions, the atmospheric level continues to be higher than at any other time in the last 2000 years.

Most interestingly, take a look at the time period from around AD 1300 to about 1850. This is referred to as the Little Ice Age, often cited by deniers as some kind of evidence global warming isn't real. SO2 levels during this period were a fraction of emissions today. If global warming, as Mr. Henry claimed, was caused because we are removing the cooling effect of SO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, then it stands to reason we would be significantly cooler today than during the Little Ice Age. The cooling effects of SO2 in the atmosphere today would be so much greater that we would be significantly cooler. And, that means we would be cooler than a period so cold it is known as the Little Ice Age. According to his claim, we would be in the depths of a major ice age by now. So, why aren't we?

The answer to that question is that SO2 emissions do, in fact, cause cooling of the atmosphere by reflecting sunlight, but this effect is small in comparison to other factors, especially the effect of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It is thought the sharp rise of atmospheric SO2 emissions is at least partly responsible for the drop in global temperatures experienced from the 1940s to the mid-1970s. But, we can see the level of SO2 concentration in the air has not dropped to anything resembling historic levels. Any change in the amount of atmospheric SO2 experienced due to the Clean Air Act is a very small percentage of the total concentration (less than 5% of the total, according to the graph above). And, SO2 concentration levels have been increasing since the year 2000 and we have had 14 of the 15 hottest years ever recorded during that time span. Assuming global warming is due to the removal of SO2 from the atmosphere, we have to ask how is it possible to set new global warming records every year, if the cooling effect of SO2 is increasing during that same time period?

Using the scientific method, we used the hypothesis (global warming is due to falling SO2 levels) to make a prediction (lower SO2 levels will lead to higher temperatures) and put it to the test and we can see the hypothesis failed the test (historically high SO2 levels correspond to historically high temperatures).

If Mr. Henry wants to say atmospheric SO2 levels result in a cooling effect, he is correct. If he wants to say the observed global warming is due to removing SO2 from the atmosphere, he is incorrect. We can see from the graph we have not really removed any significant amounts of SO2 from the atmosphere on a historical basis.

I know this will not satisfy Mr. Henry, but it at least give me a link I can point to every time he repeats his claim.

What's Warming the World?

Here is an excellent set of graphics from Bloomberg showing the effects of various factors on the climate. It shows many of the factors that people have proposed on this blog as the cause of global warming, including orbital mechanics, solar variability, aerosols (including SO2), deforestation, and volcanic activity. It shows each factor by itself and combined with others. The only thing that matches the increase in global temperature is the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is very nicely done. It won't convince any deniers, of course, but maybe some doubters will see the validity of science over denialism.

Guest Submission: Reduction in UK GHG Emissions

2015 Shows a Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the UK

A step closer towards the Kyoto Protocol

By 2020, the United Kingdom needs to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions if it wants to respect the Kyoto Protocol Treaty. As a reminder, the greenhouse gas emissions effect concerns the fact that certain gases trap the heat in the atmosphere, which affects the global water and air temperature. Those main gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride.

Nowadays, recent statistics have proven that the UK is currently meeting its target, according to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). As an example, in 2013 the emissions of greenhouse gases have decreased by 23.6% compared to 1990. 

This was mainly caused by a 15% carbon dioxide emissions reduction in the energy sector. It could be explained as the energy sector changed its electricity generation sources from fossil fuels - coal and natural gas combustion- towards more renewable sources such as wind energy or renewable fuels combustion - i.e. wood.

In 2014, this general tendency was confirmed, accounting an additional decrease of 8.4% of greenhouse gas emissions, due to a 9.2% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Those results represent a big success for the government, when it was known that in 2013, 82% of the UK greenhouse gas emissions concerned carbon dioxide.

2014 has also been a good year for the residential sector that accounted a decrease of up to 16.6% of natural gas consumption- mainly oil and propane- for space heating and cooking. Thus, British households showed a preference in investing in clean and renewable resources such as wood-pellets boilers, biomass boilers, solar panels, heat pumps and so on. Those investments are nevertheless highly incentivized by the UK government through the Feed-in Tariff, the Green Deal and other green grants allowing UK citizens to receive some financial help in investing in green resources.

Except 2010 and 2012 when the weather was particularly cold in the UK, there has been since 2004 a downward trend in greenhouse gas emissions. Hence, we can forecast positive expectations for the upcoming years trend. The Kyoto Protocol would thus be honored if it stops as planned in 2020.

From July 2015 on, statistics will be available on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) website comparing the first half of 2015 with the past 25 years (starting in 1990).

Find out more information about green energy sources on www.greenmatch.co.uk

What if Climate Change is Real?

This video is a lecture given by a climate scientist at Texas Tech University. It is the kind of thing people like Tom Harris and Russell Cook would never watch because it shows, graphically, just how wrong they are. Everyone else should watch it. It is about 18 minutes long and worth it. I did not post this because it talks about Texas, but it didn't hurt, either.

What if Climate Change is Real?

NoTricksZone Review - Too Many Tricks in Denier Article

Someone left a comment and asked me to take a look at an article appearing on the NoTricksZone website - Why There Is Global Warming. I agreed and did a review this morning. Basically, it was light work over my morning hot tea. You would think a website named 'No tricks zone' would avoid using any tricks. Sadly, that was not the case.

This article starts out with one of the most tired of all denier claims – if manmade global warming is real, how can you explain periods in the past that experienced global warming? The false argument here is the assumption there is only one way to cause global warming. I’ve discussed this false argument many times and you can read a posting about it here. But, let me summarize the argument and illustrate how it is a false one:

There was global warming in the past;

There is global warming today;

Global warming in the past was a naturally occurring cycle;

Therefore, global warming today is a naturally occurring cycle.

Let’s put this same argument another way to see how false it is:

Pneumonia kills people;

Gun shot wounds kill people;

Pneumonia is a naturally occurring disease;

Therefore, gun shot wounds are a naturally occurring disease.

The fallacy is that the second does not follow from the first. There are more ways to kill someone than just naturally occurring diseases. The same way, there are more ways to cause global warming than naturally occurring cycles.

The biggest problem with this claim is that, yes, there are naturally occurring cycles and those cycles are continuing today (in addition to manmade effects), but today’s naturally occurring cycle is a cooling cycle. If it were not for this naturally occurring cooling cycle, we would be in even worse shape than we are. I find it very interesting that every time someone pulls this argument out, they never discuss even the possibility that the natural cycle right now might be a cooling one, they automatically assume it is a warming one without any science to back them up.

Also, the graphic showing the warming/cooling cycles is in error. Here is a more scientifically valid temperature plot for the last 11,000 years. The blue arrows get in the way, but you can still clearly see the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age and can compare them to today’s temperature trend. It is a really different story when the facts are presented correctly.

Source: Climate Snapshots

The author of the NoTrickZone article then makes the case that manmade global warming can’t be real because the world is too big for us to change the temperature. Really? We can’t change the world? Take a look here:

Source: SIO

This is the Keeling curve and shows atmospheric levels of CO₂. The ziggy part to the right shows the measurements taken since the late-1950s on Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The line-graph prior to that shows the CO₂ levels as they have been reconstructed from proxy data. Wow! I would say we have managed to change the world. What’s that you said? You’re not convinced? Then, try this one. This is the data for the last 800,000 years. We’re the spike on the far right.

Source: SIO

At no time in the last 800,000 years has the CO₂ level been anywhere near today’s level. The cause of that incredible spike? Manmade emissions.

So, yes, we can most certainly change the environment.

Also, the claim works against itself because we are not the ones warming the planet. The author claims the Sun and Earth are so large we cannot change the temperature. Well, it is the Sun that is heating the planet and causing it to warm, not us. We are merely causing it to cool down less rapidly. The Sun warms the planet’s surface and that heat is then radiated out into space. Greenhouse gases absorb this heat, in the form of infrared radiation, and slow the process down. As we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the cooling process gets slower. All the while, the Sun keeps warming the planet even more. So, you see, the author is actually making the case for manmade global warming.

Then, there is a bunch of false statements in the form of “Fun Facts about Carbon Dioxide.”

First false statement. “Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO₂ that enter the Earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity.” Notice the author is trying to fool you by discussing the amount of carbon, instead of the carbon dioxide. This is an attempt to try and make it look less serious and is a deception. We are not concerned with carbon, per se. We are concerned with carbon dioxide. Why didn’t he address that issue? After all, this part of the article is titled, ‘fun fact about carbon dioxide.”

In addition, his numbers are still wrong. Try these numbers on for something more credible.

Source: Yale Climate Connections

Today, we are emitting in excess of 35 billion tons of CO₂ per year. That is a lot more significant than saying we are emitting 6 billion tons of carbon. But, do the math. The atomic weight of carbon dioxide is 44 units (16 units for each of two oxygen atoms and 12 units for one carbon atom). Therefore, carbon makes up 27.3% of the mass of carbon dioxide. Apply that percentage to 35 billion tons of emissions and you get over 9.5 billion tons of carbon – that is more than 50% larger than the number the author states. By the way, we have other products that have carbon in them that are not included in this figure. Incorrect figures and deceptive practices, that is not a good start.

Next false statement: “At 380 parts per million CO₂ is a minor constituent of the Earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, the Earth’s current atmosphere is CO₂-impoverished” See the Keeling curves above to see how today’s levels compare to historic levels. There is no comparison at all. Today’s levels have not been seen within the last 800,000 years, at least. Were there periods further back in history that had higher levels? Yes, there were. The Cambrian Period 500 million years ago had levels in the thousands of parts per million.  But, no one alive today would want to live during those times. Simply because some time hundreds of millions or billions of years ago had higher CO₂ levels does not mean it would be hospitable to modern human life. And, it is not relevant to the discussion of today’s climate.

And, please explain to me how he justifies saying today's levels are 'minor.' Is he saying they are minor because they are .04% of the atmosphere? If so, then he is being deceptive because that .04% has a very significant impact. Take a look at this one example of the impact from those levels. An over-the-counter pain killer is a lot smaller percentage of your body weight than .04%, but it also has a big effect. So does alcohol at levels far below .04% of body weight. The claim that it is minor simply because it is 'only' .04% of the atmosphere has no scientific validity. 

Another false argument: “Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it.” Raw sewage is a nutrient, also and has been used in some countries for thousands of years to fertilize farm fields. Do you want it in your drinking water and do you want to breathe fumes from it? So, why does this argument not apply to CO₂? Once you get too much of something, it becomes a pollutant. We now have so much CO₂ that the environment cannot deal with it. CO₂ has become a pollutant.

Next false argument: “CO₂ that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans.” No. Again, take a look at the Keeling curve above. The vast majority of CO₂ produced is produced by natural processes. The vast majority of CO₂ produced, by both natural and manmade sources, is absorbed. But, about 50% of manmade CO₂ remains in the air (see the Keeling curve again). By the way, that CO₂ that is being absorbed by the oceans is causing them to become more acidic. And, that’s also bad news

Finishing up with one last false statement: “If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate” 

So, this person’s argument is that manmade global warming isn’t real because it would take too much money to fix it. That is not a scientifically valid argument. And, it is incorrect, too. Also note that he makes this argument after saying, earlier in the article, we are too small to be changing the planet. Wait a minute! If our emissions are so small, why can’t we do something about them? And, if they are so big we are unable to do anything about them, how is it they are so small they can’t change the environment? He’s playing two sides of his own argument. And neither one of them is valid.

We can, in fact, do something about global warming. The first thing we need to do is get people to stop making false arguments like this article.

Guest Submission: Moral Case for Fossil Fuels II

The following guest submission was sent by the same individual that made the first guest submission on this topic. You can read his first submission, and my comments, here.

From: David Okner

Date:12/30/2014 11:00 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: "dogw.email"

Subject: Re: Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

And I’ll respond to your response:

1.  The first and biggest point is you didn’t actually read my submission, which was the book. I suggest you debate Alex Epstein, not me. I know the book is a lot, but just say you don’t want to read it rather than invoking logical fallacies.

Take a one look at Alex Epstein's history and it easy to see this issue is entirely false. 

The first clue is his education - a B.A. in philosophy. Where are his scientific credentials to justify his claim he is smarter than all of the world's climate scientists are wrong? Answer: He has none.

2. Seriously? This is a logical fallacy and actually a philosophy background is exactly the best background to have to make sure everything has been integrated to look at the big picture and thought of correctly. That doesn’t come from credentials though. Climate experts are just one area of expertise. If you had any background in philosophy you would know that science is based on philosophy, reason. Perhaps you wouldn’t use so many logical fallacies if you were familiar with logic. Smarter than all the world’s climate scientists? Are you serious? Is that how you think science works? You just give an intelligence test and then whoever is the smartest then whatever he says is true? Also, Alex is not a climate scientist, he is showing you the work of the “smartest climate scientists” you advocate. Alex never said he was smarter than the world’s climate scientists. What you are saying is that you are an authority to be obeyed, not an expert to be consulted.

The next clue? He actually brags about working for the fossil fuel industry. It is not surprising he will simply, out-right lie for them. Which he does. For instance:

“One point I like to stress is that we should think of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear, as clean energy.”

Nothing about fossil fuels could possibly be further from the truth. I won't mince words, anyone saying this is a liar. All of these energy sources listed are lethal poisons. Now, don't misunderstand me, I am not saying we need to get rid of them, I am simply pointing out they are lethal poisons and not 'clean' as Mr. Epstein wants you to believe. The only possible reason he would say something like that is to deceive because there is just no truth to that statement. Hopefully, even the deniers can recognize the truth to that.

'

3. Again, character attacks. Logical fallacies. I could also attack your character and dream up hidden motives which are irrelevant anyway. The idea that the only way somebody would support fossil fuels is if they are paid off is ridiculous. You are looking for hidden motives and not examining the arguments in the book. And likewise the only reason somebody would oppose fossil fuels is because they are paid off is equally ridiculous in credit to your side. That is not a valid argument.

I watched his video and I can sum it up with one word - ridiculous. He begins right away with crazy claims that you are required to accept as truthful without any supporting references or evidence. Not only is it filled with nontruths (It is good the world uses fossil fuels and it would better if we used more), but is, in essence, an enormous bait and switch.

4. The book is full of references, which you would know if you actually read it. Just say you don’t want to read it instead of making ridiculous logical fallacies. Debate Alex if you don’t want to read his book. Show everybody how wrong his thinking is.

Here is the fallacy in Mr. Epstein's entire argument - he wants you to believe the only kind of energy source are fossil fuels. He states, 'the truth must be exposed'. Well, here is the truth about Mr. Epstein's argument - it isn't fossil fuels that have improved lifestyles, it is available energy at affordable prices, but Mr. Epstein wants you to believe the only source of that energy is fossil fuels. That is the big lie he is selling. He continues the lie by wanting you to believe it is a good thing for us to change the environment and we need to do as much to change the environment as we possibly can.

5. No fossil fuels aren’t the only source. There is nuclear too, but that doesn’t cause greenhouse gasses, so who cares. If you read the book you would know that fossil fuels are the cheap, reliable and plentiful source of energy, which is what matters when it comes to energy. Energy that doesn’t meet these requirements isn’t very useful. You can get energy from a lot of things, but who cares.

Yes, no one will deny that fossil fuels have provided affordable energy in the past, but now it is no longer true. The total cost of fossil fuels has become unacceptable. The amount of damage to the environment and climate and the world economies has reached proportions that it is lowering standards of living around the world (contrary to his claims) and is resulting in increased deaths (also contrary to his claims). Don't take my work for it, do a little research for yourself. Here is just one study on the matter. And, another. How about this one? Or, this one? And, don't forget this.

6. No, fossil fuels are the cheapest, most abundant and reliable source of energy. Weather disasters happen and thanks to fossil fuels climate related deaths from all the kinds you mentioned are at a record low.  There is no comparison. This is the issue of looking at the big picture. You can’t ignore the positives and being philosophically minded like Alex and myself allows one to make sure the big picture is being integrated and being thought of properly. The first chapter of the book is free. http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com

So, Alex Epstein is accepting funds from the biggest polluters the world has ever seen and telling us this pollution is not only good for us, but we need to do more.

7. What? More character attacks about motives and also ignoring the big picture? Pollution is at an all time low thanks to modern filtering technology and also you can’t ignore the positives of fossil fuels. It is wind and solar that are dangerous to our environment because they can’t provide cheap, reliable and plentiful energy and of course they pollute too. If we were to switch to those our environment would be destroyed and our protection from climate danger would be almost non existant. Hundreds of millions would die if we followed your ideas. People who love what fossil fuels do for our lives pay Alex for his ideas. The reason is because we don’t want our environment destroyed and climate danger to drastically increase because of your bad ideas. Can you fault us for loving our environment and wanting to live and thrive on Earth?

A point made in the book is that some people have humans as their standard of value and want to improve our environment. Others have a totally different standard which is based on minimizing impact on “the environment”, which means sacrificing humans for a untouched Earth out of a bias against what humans do as morally wrong. If you want to minimizing impact on our environment then I think Alex would agree with you that we should stop using fossil fuels. But I and others in humanity want to maximize our impact on our environment and do so in an extremely positive way so humanity can thrive, because that is our standard of value. They are his ideas, just like your ideas are yours. People who like your ideas pay you for your ideas. The question is who has the right ideas. You don’t examine the ideas, you use logical fallacies to evade.

Read the book if you care about the issue. There is no other book that addresses the heart of the subject directly and in the big picture. The first chapter is free: http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com

-David

Response:

Paragraph 1:

One thing you are correct about is that I did not read the book and I won’t be. That is pretty close to the only thing you are correct about. Here are some references I consulted on the topic:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-the-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels-by-alex-epstein-1417477909

http://industrialprogress.com/about/

http://www.desmogblog.com/alex-epstein

http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels/dp/1591847443

No, I am not going to read the book. I don’t need to. It is easy for people to tell a book’s claim is false without reading it – such as books that claim the Moon landings were faked, the Holocaust didn’t happen, Elvis Presley is alive and we are holding aliens captive in Area 51. For the record, yes, I am grouping this piece of work in with those others and I apologize to those other authors for including Alex Epstein in with them. Those others are merely nuts, not overtly harmful.

Paragraph 2:

No, the best background to integrate science is a science one.  You continue to demonstrate your logic failure by assuming I don’t have a background in philosophy. I do. And, no, I did not use a logical fallacy by criticizing Mr. Epstein’s credentials. Would you allow a philosophy major to perform surgery? Why not? After all, according to you, it is the best background to integrate all of the issues to obtain the big picture. I mean, don’t you want your surgeon to have the big picture when he’s standing out your wide-open body? To answer my questions for you, just to make sure you get them correctly – No, I want a surgeon that knows the science and has the skills to perform the job. Same thing with science. It takes decades of hard work to obtain the necessary skills. Mr. Epstein simply decided one day that reading Aristotle and Kant was enough to be able to prove all of the world’s scientists wrong. We aren’t even talking about climate scientists alone because he isn’t limiting himself to the single most complicated science of all, he’s taking on all of science and all scientists everywhere. There’s a term for that in philosophy – hubris.

Paragraph 3:

Showing someone’s motives is not only valid, but is critically important. Why is someone saying the things they are saying? We have learned, from Mr. Epstein himself, he is saying the things he does because he is funded by the fossil fuel industry. That is important information to know and explains why people such as Richard Lindzen and the Oregon Petition Project work so hard to hide that information.

Notice, did not engage in character attacks on Mr. Epstein. I only questioned his motives. I did not discuss his sexual orientation, if he kicks his dog, how he votes or if he undertips the waiter. Those would be character attacks and those kinds of things would be irrelevant. Keep your false arguments in line, please.

Paragraph 4:

I would love to debate him in a public forum.

Paragraph 5:

Fossil fuels are not so cheap anymore (Nuclear is not even close to being cheap, and I’m a nuclear energy supporter.) Also, when you start including the cost of damage done by fossil fuel they become one of the least affordable sources of energy of all.

But, wait! We just identified why the fossil fuel industry is supporting Mr. Epstein. Mr. Epstein wants us to believe fossil fuel pollution is GOOD for us. So, when it spoils our water, poisons our air, makes our children sick and kills us, it is all a GOOD thing for us and we shouldn’t be saying bad things about those benevolent fossil fuel people. After all, Mr. Epstein tells us they have made our lives so much better. And, don’t even THINK about holding them accountable for their actions because changing the environment is a GOOD thing.

Speaking of using false arguments, that whole line is nothing more than a crock of horse manure.

Paragraph 6:

This paragraph has so many false statements (short and poisonous) that I don't know where to begin. Let's just address your claim that "thanks to fossil fuels climate related deaths from all the kinds you mentioned are at a record low." Then, tell me how you explain these facts:

• Climate change affects the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.
• Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.
• The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between US$ 2-4 billion/year by 2030.
• Areas with weak health infrastructure – mostly in developing countries – will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond.
• Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through better transport, food and energy-use choices can result in improved health, particularly through reduced air pollution.

 Source: World Health Organization

Paragraph 7:

Do you really expect someone to believe that pollution is at an all time low?

More of the same. Yes, I am justified in questioning his motives, especially when they are so transparent and his claims are so false.

Then, you make a statement that is actually sick:

It is wind and solar that are dangerous to our environment because they can’t provide cheap, reliable and plentiful energy and of course they pollute too. If we were to switch to those our environment would be destroyed and our protection from climate danger would be almost non existant. Hundreds of millions would die if we followed your ideas. People who love what fossil fuels do for our lives pay Alex for his ideas. The reason is because we don’t want our environment destroyed and climate danger to drastically increase because of your bad ideas. Can you fault us for loving our environment and wanting to live and thrive on Earth?

So, the scientific evidence is conclusive – fossil fuels are destroying the environment and the climate. And, you want to justify them by saying “Can you fault us for loving our environment…..?” I can – and do – fault you, but it’s for lying.

Just another one of your false arguments. You make the claim that anyone not wanting to use fossil fuels wants to “sacrifice human” and that you and others (presumably, those that want to use even more fossil fuels) “want to maximize our impact on our environment and do so in an extremely positive way so humanity can thrive.” These are both incredibly false arguments and you will certainly get people to fall for them because they sound so nice. “Trust us, we’re the good guys and those environmentalists over there are the bad guys. They want to turn off your lights! They want all of you to die so the air and water are clean. How unreasonable of them! Bad environmentalists! Bad! Bad!”

Some of the several false arguments you make with your statement is that people that oppose the use of fossil fuels want to ‘sacrifice humans’ when it is actually the opposite. By keeping the air and water clean, it will improve the lives of humans, not sacrifice them. And, of course, the biggest false argument you make is that the only way we can have energy is by burning fossil fuels. This is not only every obviously false, but we are seeing an increasing number of people turn to alternatives. Solar power alone will likely rewrite the entire energy industry. That is another example of why the fossil fuel industry is paying Mr. Epstein – they don’t want people to realize they can break free of fossil fuels and IMPROVE their standard of living at the same time.

And, when you speak of ‘maximize our impact on our environment’ you automatically assume that any change is good. That is the central false argument Mr. Epstein makes the entire time – the natural state of the environment is actually bad for us, so changing it (no matter how or why) has to be good. Go back to your philosophy and logic classes. This is a completely false argument with nothing to support it.

Really, do you think I would hesitate to debate Mr. Epstein on these issues in a public forum?

By the way, no one is paying me for my ideas. I would love to get financial support from some source, but I don’t.

In summation, your entire statement is an amazingly bad failure of logic and science.

Guest Submission: Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

From: David Okner

Date:12/29/2014 2:21 PM (GMT-06:00)

To: DOGW.email@gmail.com

Subject: Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

Keating,

I submit for you Alex Epstein's book "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" which was recently published.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Case-Fossil-Fuels/dp/1591847443

Nobody cares if humans can warm the planet, net warming or not. That is a a childish straw man and non sequitur. Let's have a real dialogue on the actual subject.

The question is in the big picture do fossil fuels improve our environment and make us safer from the climate? The answer is insurmountably "yes" as proven in Alex's groundbreaking book.

We should be using more if we want to improve our environment even more and make ourselves even safer from the climate. That is the subject, not "Do you believe in Climate? Science told me Climate is a fact because greenhouse gasses are real."

Trailer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu6637cjk8A

Challenge website:
http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.co.uk/p/10000-global-warming-skeptic-challenge.html

-David


Response:

Take a one look at Alex Epstein's history and it easy to see this issue is entirely false. 

The first clue is his education - a B.A. in philosophy. Where are his scientific credentials to justify his claim he is smarter than all of the world's climate scientists are wrong? Answer: He has none.

The next clue? He actually brags about working for the fossil fuel industry. It is not surprising he will simply, out-right lie for them. Which he does. For instance:

“One point I like to stress is that we should think of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear, as clean energy.”

Nothing about fossil fuels could possibly be further from the truth. I won't mince words, anyone saying this is a liar. All of these energy sources listed are lethal poisons. Now, don't misunderstand me, I am not saying we need to get rid of them, I am simply pointing out they are lethal poisons and not 'clean' as Mr. Epstein wants you to believe. The only possible reason he would say something like that is to deceive because there is just no truth to that statement. Hopefully, even the deniers can recognize the truth to that.

I watched his video and I can sum it up with one word - ridiculous. He begins right away with crazy claims that you are required to accept as truthful without any supporting references or evidence. Not only is it filled with nontruths (It is good the world uses fossil fuels and it would better if we used more), but is, in essence, an enormous bait and switch.

Here is the fallacy in Mr. Epstein's entire argument - he wants you to believe the only kind of energy source are fossil fuels. He states, 'the truth must be exposed'. Well, here is the truth about Mr. Epstein's argument - it isn't fossil fuels that have improved lifestyles, it is available energy at affordable prices, but Mr. Epstein wants you to believe the only source of that energy is fossil fuels. That is the big lie he is selling. He continues the lie by wanting you to believe it is a good thing for us to change the environment and we need to do as much to change the environment as we possibly can.

Yes, no one will deny that fossil fuels have provided affordable energy in the past, but now it is no longer true. The total cost of fossil fuels has become unacceptable. The amount of damage to the environment and climate and the world economies has reached proportions that it is lowering standards of living around the world (contrary to his claims) and is resulting in increased deaths (also contrary to his claims). Don't take my work for it, do a little research for yourself. Here is just one study on the matter. And, another. How about this one? Or, this one? And, don't forget this.

So, Alex Epstein is accepting funds from the biggest polluters the world has ever seen and telling us this pollution is not only good for us, but we need to do more.

And, that is everything that needs to be said about him.

The Reason Fossil Fuel Companies Deny Global Warming

If you realize that manmade global warming is real, the next logical conclusion is to do something about it. So, if you can keep the debate focused on the reality of AGW, then you don't have to worry about doing something about it. Now, you might ask, why would someone be interested in preventing us from acting on AGW? Take a look at this article here.

This article discusses the actions taken in Nordic countries to deal with carbon emissions, something they have been very successful at. In fact, they have been so successful they are actually lowering the cost of energy. The alternative sources of power they are now using are actually cheaper than the coal fired power plants they are replacing.

And, that is what the fossil fuel industry really fears.

For instance:

Fossil power plants in Finland and Denmark act as swing-producers, helping to meet demand when hydropower production in Norway and Sweden falls due to dry weather.

The arrival of wind power on a large scale has made this role less relevant and has pushed electricity prices down, eroding profitability of fossil power stations.

And, I love this statement,

"Demand for coal condensing power in the Nordic power market has decreased as a result of the economic recession and the drop in the wholesale price for electricity," state-controlled Finnish utility Fortum said

 Or, this statement,

"This will, in our view, result in mothballing of 2,000 MW of coal condensing capacity in Denmark and Finland towards 2030,"

The evidence is clear - the fossil fuel industry is lying to us when they say renewable energy sources will increase our utility bills and lower the standard of living. What we really see is the exact opposite, the standard of living is going down due to global warming and renewable energy will improve the situation. Today, we are already paying for higher utility bills, more expensive food, higher insurance costs, loss of jobs, and economic damage due to weather extremes. Who is telling you not to worry about all of that? The same people that are making billions of dollars off of it - the same people that stand to lose billions of dollars if we do something about it.

But, we won't do anything about it as long was we argue about the reality of it.

And, that is why the fossil fuel industry fears letting people realize AGW is real.

It is Time to Change the Way We Think

We cannot solve the problems that we have created with the same thinking that created them.

Albert Einstein

I am sure Einstein was not talking about climate change when he made this comment, but it certainly applies. I guess that is a demonstration of his true genius - it transcends the ages and issues. We cannot expect to solve the problems we face today with climate change by using the same thinking we used to get in this situation. We MUST change the way we think.

I recently received a comment from someone that read my book and told me he gave me a review on Amazon.com. He said something very interesting (and, unfortunately, very accurate):

Although I found his evidence for global warming overwhelming, he failed to fully convince me that the solutions suggested would be very effective in reducing it.

Stephen Challis

And, I agree with him. I did not do a convincing job of addressing the issue of what we do about climate change. The simple reason is that I was stuck in using the same thinking we used to get us here. I did not change the way I thought.

There is an interesting article in Scientific American that addresses how to go about this problem. The writer does a pretty good job of covering all of the pit falls with addressing the problem. I think it is a start, but that is all.

Really, the issue is this, fossil fuels are cheap, but are poisoning the environment for everyone. So, what do we do about it? If we don't address the problem, everyone, even the billionaires making obscene profits, are stuck with a poisoned environment. If we do address it we make energy more expensive for everyone. Those billionaires can afford higher energy bills, but most of us can't. We will have to make choices. And, what about all of the people in the world that can't afford energy at the current rates? What do you do about them at even higher rates? They don't even have the luxury of making choices.

The sad truth is that we are all in this together - every single one of us from the very desperately poor to the most incredibly rich. Climate change reduces the quality of life for all of us, even those that deny it is happening. None of us gets to sit in the stands and say they aren't playing.

So, what do we do? I am looking for new, different ideas. The old, tired ones aren't working. Can you come up with something new?

Article on Democracy and Climate Change

I read an interesting article on CNBC about the role of our democratic government in addressing the issue of climate change. I thought I would share it. You can read the article here.

Obama's New Coal Regulations

I've been holding off commenting on the new coal regulations announced by the EPA this past Monday. The reason is because the regulation has nothing to do with the reality of global warming. The science remains the same with, or without the proposed regulations.

However, I also like to discuss actions we can take to address the problems we are facing and the emission of greenhouse gases is certainly a problem that needs to be addressed. So, the question is, does the new proposed regulations address the problem? I have been reviewing what is being said and, to no surprise, both sides of the argument are making extreme predictions, neither of which seems to be holding up to the light of day.

First, I really see no evidence this will make a significant change in our greenhouse emissions. Headlines are saying it will reduce our emissions by 30%, but that isn't true. What it will do is cut emissions from new construction power plants by 30% compared to the 2005 levels. Power plants have already reduced emissions by about 13% compared to 2005 levels, so we are talking about an additional 17% reduction. These regulations apply only to new power plants and not to any existing power plants or other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, such as cars. In the total picture, that comes out to about a 6% cut. And, that is over a 15-year period. Notice that the 17% reduction occurred without any new EPA regulations. They occurred because of market forces, so it is reasonable to assume that further reductions would occur without these new regulations.

Also, it isn't even necessary to actually make the cuts. States can make their own plans and combine the power plants with something else. So, if some industry is making reductions anyway it is possible to combine them with the power plants and the power plants can then go their merry way. To make it even worse, states are allowed to join together in one big plan. So, the reduction could be taking place in one state and the coal-fired plant could be in another.

Based on that, I have to say this is getting a lot more attention than it deserves.

But, what about the draconian predictions of the groups opposed to the proposed regulations?

Again, I just don't see it. They are saying this will make electricity more expensive and cause a loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. The US Chamber of Commerce is predicting a loss of 224,000 jobs PER YEAR for the next 15 years. That comes out to 3,360,000 total jobs and that number is just not credible on the surface. I would want to see some serious estimates before I accept a figure like that.

Why am I so critical of that estimate? Simple. The demand for electricity is sky-rocketing in this country. If we are not building coal-fired plants, we will build something else. The electrical utilities will find a way to supply the electricity demanded because that is what they are in business to do. Supplying electricity means profit. They are not going to sit back and allow potential profits to go away without doing something about it.

And, as it turns out, we are developing better ways to generate electricity than burning coal. Natural gas is not great, but it is much better than coal and we have a very serious boom in natural gas production going on in this country. We have the ability to replace all of the coal-fired plants with natural gas alone.

But, that isn't all. It now turns out that photo cells are becoming competitive with other forms of power production. A report by Barclays investment bank shows that photocells are already cost-competitive in Hawaii, and will be competitive in California by 2017 and New York and Arizona by 2018. By 2024, they say photocells will be cheaper than grid power in all but a handful of states.

Specifically, the report is looking at the issue of cells and storage on private homes - people going off the grid. But, if photocells are becoming that competitive, how long will it be before the utilities realize they can make efficient, competitive power plants using photocells?

In other words, we will be making electricity and I don't see the cost sky rocketing. As for the jobs, there will likely be some job displacement, but losses will probably be minor if in fact, we don't see an increase in jobs due to new technologies. Coal miners might see their jobs suffer, but I'm betting it won't be as much as is claimed. Coal is something of a miracle power source, other than the fact that it is a terrible polluter. You just dig it out of the ground and use it. You don't have to process it and it even comes in an easy to transport form. If we are not burning coal here in this country, there are world markets where it will still be cost effective to ship our coal. China alone is planning on opening a new power plant every week between now and 2050.

So, the way I view the regulation is that its pretty close to being much ado about nothing. The cost to the economy is not going to be anything like the dire forecasts being made. At the same time, the benefits to the environment are not going to be anything like the optimistic forecasts being made.

However, we must do something about the emissions. If this will help, then we should do it. And, it gives us the moral high ground to put pressure on other countries to take action on their emissions.

But, there is one dark side to this that needs to be addressed. As much as I, as a scientist, want to see politics stay out of a scientific issue, we all know that is not realistic. Politics is the driving force behind much of the debate. I really don't believe the Republicans would deny global warming evidence so strongly if it was being proposed by a Republican. And, what Obama has done with his actions is to stir the pot and alienate Republicans even more. By his failure as President to work with the representatives of the People, including members of his own party, he is making future progress even harder to attain. By acting as an Imperial President, Obama is making it increasingly difficult to convince skeptics that this is a problem that needs to be addressed now.

In summary, I think the regulation is good one, even though it is over-hyped. But, I denounce the way it is being done.

The effect of water vapor on global warming

One of the false arguments global warming deniers make is that CO2 measurements are unimportant because water vapor is much more effective greenhouse gas. This is one of those statements that has just enough truth behind it to obscure the lie.Yes, water vapor is a very potent greenhouse gas, much more so than CO2, but what the deniers don't want to admit is that the reason there is water vapor in the atmosphere is because something else warmed it up in the first place.

This process makes water vapor a positive feedback agent with the potential to approximately double the amount of warming due to other sources. As the atmosphere gets warmer the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere also increases. The increased level of water vapor will then trap more heat, resulting in warmer temperatures and even more water vapor. But, the water vapor cannot do it alone. There must be some agent to start the process and that agent in our current situation is CO2. By dumping billions of tons of CO2 in our atmosphere every year, we trap heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise radiate into space and this leads to warmer atmosphere. This warmer atmosphere then leads to more water vapor.

Since water vapor is so important in the process we need to know just how much effect it has on the climate. A team of scientists used measurements from instruments onboard the Aqua spacecraft to make direct measurements of this effect. According to their work, water vapor amplifies global warming by 2.2 watts per square meter per degree Celsius (plus or minus .4 watts per square meter per degree Celsius). In comparison, the solar index (the amount of energy reaching Earth from the Sun) is about 1360 watts per square meter. For every one degree Celsius change in temperature, water vapor increases the amount of energy stored in the atmosphere by about .16%. It may not sound like much, but you keep doing that every day for a long period of time and it will add up to a very large amount of energy stored in the atmosphere that we would not otherwise have.

The scientists point out that this is only a short-term measurement because the amount of data is small. This figure is subject to short-term changes in the weather and climate fluctuations. They used these figures in models to try and determine a long-term value and the models suggested it is between 1.9 and 2.8 watts per square meter per degree Celsius. As more data is collected this figure will be refined to a more accurate value.

Denier Funding

Climate change deniers like to say that the science behind climate change is not 'settled science' and that there is no consensus among scientists. These, of course, are false statements. The fact is, 97% of all climate scientists agree that climate change is real and is due to manmade emissions.  Here is an excellent report on the very subject. The science is very real and scientist who work in this field of study are in overwhelming agreement.

Deniers also reject the claim that they are funded by the fossil fuel industry to undermine the valid science and to inject doubt into the minds of the public. Below is a list of some of the denier sources and individuals receiving those funds. The challenge to me was to produce documents that could used in the event I received a subpoena in a slander/libel lawsuit. I have indicated my sources of information and they satisfy that requirement. The information provided here has been gleaned from tax documents, SEC filings, statements by the individuals themselves, court papers and articles vetted by major news media (also one of the standards demanded by the denier).

So, I'll say it to be perfectly clear:  

Some organizations in the fossil fuel industry are funding climate change deniers for the purpose of undermining climate change science. 

If someone would like to sue me for slander/libel, then the documents below would be enough to get the case thrown out of court. Of course, the deniers will claim otherwise, but they live in a fantasy world that does not accept reality.

The denier disinformation campaign is very well funded and very well organized. A study done at Drexel University found 140 foundations provided $558 million to nearly 100 climate change organizations between 2003 and 2010. That comes out to an average of almost $70 million per year. That is some serious money and you don't provide that kind of funding just to have a tax-write off. This funding is done for a purpose. What I find very telling is the fact that traceable donations have disappeared and been replaced with untraceable donations to third-party proxies. In fact, one climate change denial proxy, Donors Trust (along with the associated Donors Capital) accounts for fully 25% of all climate change denier funding. Why are they hiding their donations? Are they afraid that people would question their motives?

Many of the organizations providing funding for climate change denial are among the world's worst emitters of greenhouse gases. The original paper on sources of greenhouse gases can be found here. This list represents who stands to lose the most if we do something about the problem. In other words, people making a bunch of money hurting the rest of us are convincing millions of people that we shouldn't do anything about the problem. And, millions of people simply take out their checkbook and agree with them.

Here are some of the funding organizations and funding receivers. This list is not even close to being exhaustive, it is here merely to illustrate the debt of the problem.


Funding Organizations

ChevronTexaco - Provides funding to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Source: Think Progress

ExxonMobil - Exxon reports show donations to the Heartland Institute between 1998 and 2007 of $676,500. Exxon donated more than $28 million to the American Enterprise Institute (see below). Along with the Marshall Institute and Fred Singer's group, they proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty. Exxon was called out by a number of senators for giving over $19 million to fund groups "producing very questionable data" on climate change. Studies have found Exxon to have been "heavily involved" in denier funding between 2003 and 2008 and donated more than $16 million during that time. Exxon has since changed and says it no longer gives to climate denier organizations and there has been no publicly traceable denier funding from Exxon since 2008.  There are reports it continued to provide denier funding through at least 2011. However, there are still proxies that Exxon donates to, so it is not possible to verify it has stopped all funding.
Source: Greenpeace USA, Newsweek, Scientific American, The Guardian , Huffington Post

BP - Provides funding to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Source: Think Progress

Shell - Provides funding to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Source: Think Progress

Koch Brothers - The Koch brothers and their interrelated corporations and foundations have been responsible for millions of dollars in donations to denial organizations, including the Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute and Heritage Foundation. They have also had to pay tens of millions of dollars in fines and hundreds of millions of dollars in clean-up costs as a result of violating environmental safety guards. They have been very critical of environmental safety laws, both on the books and proposed. Between 2005 and 2011 the Kochs would provide over $43 million to denier organizations, more than three times what Exxon provided during the same time period. The Kochs have become the largest single source of funds for denier organizations. They provide funding to the American Legislative Exchange Council.

Source: Huffington Post, Think Progress


Peabody Energy -Peabody is the world's largest private-sector supplier of coal and sold more than 246 million tons of coal in 2010. Peabody supports American Legislative Exchange Council and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, both very active climate change denial organizations.
Source: Polluter Watch, SourceWatch

Chrysler - Chrysler donated $105,000 to the Heartland Institute between 2004 and 2006.
Source: Huffington Post

General Motors - GM donated $165,000 to the Heartland Institute between 2004 and 2010. They donated $95,000 to the Cato Institute between 2003 and 2009. 
Source: Huffington Post

Western Fuels Association - Supports the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a major climate change denier organization.
Source: The Nation


And, take a look at who is getting the funding. The people and institutes here are among the most notorious of the climate change deniers or proxies.


Funding Receivers

Donors Trust -  According to IRS tax returns, between 2002 and 2010, Donors Trust provided over $90 million in funding ($90,989,710 to be exact) to 84 groups that deny the scientific realities of climate change. Between 2004 and 2010, the partner group Donors Capital Fund, provided more than $28 million in funding ($28,490,862) to 75 groups that deny the scientific realities of climate change. They receive their funds from conservative sources, including the Koch Brothers, Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. Charles Koch donated $2 million in 2010 alone.
Source: DeSmogBlog, Mother Jones, Huffington Post,

The Heartland Institute - Possibly the organization most guilty of false-science and efforts to undermine valid climate science. The Heartland Institute once compared climate scientists to terrorists, including the Unabomber, Charles Manson, Osama bin Laden and Fidel Castro. They stated, “the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” Heartland's president, Joseph Bast, has called Heartland "the world's most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made global warming." Several internal documents were obtained by Peter Gleick and posted online. These documents revealed they were receiving funding from the fossil fuel industry and were engaged in campaigns to undermine climate science with school-based programs. Heartland demanded Gleick be charged and threatened lawsuits against anyone reposting the documents or even discussing them (I guess I'm in trouble). They are one of the organizations involved in the intimidation campaign against climate researcher Michael Mann. Heartland was involved in the ClimateGate campaign where the computer servers at East Anglia were illegally hacked and selected emails were stolen. These emails were then cherry-picked to take quotes out of context in an effort to make it look as if the scientists were faking their research. The scientists were all cleared of any wrong-doing by several independent panels, but Heartland continues to cite the emails in a continuing effort to discredit the scientists. They have engaged in other campaigns to attack, intimidate and discredit climate scientists (when you can't refute the science, destroy the scientists). they host an annual conference of climate change contrarians. Heartland has also been involved with efforts to convince people there is no danger in second-hand smoke. In addition to their internal documents showing they receive funding from the fossil fuel industry, Exxon documents show they donated $676,500 to Heartland since 1998. See the above entry about Donors Trust, which has donated money to Heartland.
According to various data bases and their tax documents, some of their funding includes: American Petroleum Institute ($25,000, 2008), Chrysler Foundation ($105,000, 2004-06), Donors Capital Fund ($25.6 million, 2005-11), Donors Trust ($554,000, 2008-10), ExxonMobil ($531,500, 2001-06), General Motors Foundation ($165,000, 2004-10) and Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($25,000, 2011).
Source: Washington Post, The Heartland Institute, Forbes, The Guardian, Forbes again, Watching the Deniers, More Forbes , ExxonSecrets, Huffington Post, More Huffington Post, Union of Concerned Scientists

The American Petroleum Institute (API) - The API has long held the position that any effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions is a 'tax on our industry' and has fought behind the scenes to undermine any effort to enact legislation that might hurt the fossil fuel industry. Internal memos have shown that it funds and provides staffing for campaigns against legislation, then denies any involvement. API says that it does not consider climate change legislation to be an energy tax, but then runs numerous ads calling any such legislation an 'energy tax.' Along with other groups, API funded reports for Congress "whose entire purpose was to confuse people on the science of global warming." Among other contributors, AEI received more than $1.9 million from Exxon.
Source: DeSmogBlog, Newsweek

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) - Among other things, it offered $10,000 cash plus travel expenses for any scientist that would write papers undermining climate change research. It has been reported that AEI received over $28 million from ExxonMobil over a 10 year period, although that funding level has dropped significantly in recent years. Besides Exxon, AEI has received $60,000 from the American Petroleum Institute $1.1 million from the three main Koch family foundations between 2001 and 2011. AEI denies it rejects climate change science, even though they have been active in the business. Among other things they have been involved with, they helped underwrite a $53,000 project for a denier's presentation to Congress claiming there was no warming over the last 1000 years. Therefore, it was claimed, there was no scientific consensus. According to various data bases and their tax documents, some of their funding includes: American Petroleum Institute ($145,000, 2008-11), Donors Capital Fund ($15.16 million, 2002 -11), Donors Trust ($187,000, 2002-11), ExxonMobil ($3.04 million, 2001-11), Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($350,000, 2004-11) and Charles Koch’s Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation ($750,000, 2005-07).

Source: Newsweek, Wikipedia, SourceWatch, The Guardian, Union of Concerned Scientists

Americans For Prosperity -According to various data bases and their tax documents, some of their funding includes: American Petroleum Institute ($124,000, 2008-11), Donors Capital Fund ($1.32million, 2005-11), Donors Trust ($6.33million, 2005-11), Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, $67,500, 2009), David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ($1 million, 2008) and Charles Koch’s Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation ($4.69 million, 2005-10).

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) - ALEC is an extremist organization that, among other things, promotes climate change denial and is funded by the oil and gas industry. It is extremely weird - and dangerous. Read the first-hand account from Chris Taylor, a state representative from Wisconsin. ALEC denies that global warming is causing glaciers to retreat or sea level to rise. Not only does ALEC deny the threat of climate change, they even argue that “substantial global warming is likely to be of benefit to the United States”.
Source: The Progressive, Climate Progress

Richard Lindzen - He always claimed to not take any funding from the fossil fuel industry, but finally admitted to taking over $10,000 per year from the fossil fuel industry plus consulting fees and travel expenses. He receives $2,500 per day in consulting fees. He was a court expert witness for the Western Fuels Association.
Source: DeSmogBlog, SourceWatch, Weather Underground

Patrick Michaels - Michaels served as an expert court witness on behalf of the Western Fuels Association. This, and other actions, led the Minnesota Star to write about him in an editorial stating he was a fossil-fuel industry funded scientist. He won a court case against them, but then he admitted in 1995 that he had received over $165,000 from the fossil fuel industry. He now refuses to reveal any of his source of funds. ABC reported he had received $100,000 from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association. He also acknowledged on CNN that 40 percent of his funding comes from the oil industry. He was a witness in a lawsuit but withdrew when it became apparent he would have to reveal his funding sources. He was paid by the coal industry to write the World Climate Report, in which he regularly attempted to discredit climate science.
Source: ThinkProgress, Wikipedia, Mother Jones, DeSmogBlog, Newsweek, Huffington Post

The Cato Institute: A long-time climate denial organization, Patrick Michaels (see above) heads their Center for the Study of Science. He admitted that he receives 40% of his funding from the fossil fuel industry. The Cato Institute received $110,000 from ExxonMobil between 2001and 2006, $95,000 from General Motors from 2003 to 2009, and $2.79 million from the three main Koch family funds from 2001 to 2010.

According to various data bases and their tax documents, some of their funding includes: Donors Capital Fund ($1.08 million, 2002-11), DonorsTrust ($348,670, 2002-11), ExxonMobil ($110,000, 2001-06), Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($18,400, 2006-08), David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ($500,000, 2001) and Charles Koch’s Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation ($2.27 million, 2001-10).

Source: Huffington Post, Union of Concerned Scientists

Competitive Enterprise Institute - According to various data bases and their tax documents, some of their funding includes: American Petroleum Institute ($25,000, 2009), Donors Capital Fund ($607,280, 2007-11), Donors Trust ($581,000, 2002-11), ExxonMobil ($1.69 million, 2001-05), General Motors Foundation ($245,000, 2003-08), Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($24,100, 2009) and Charles Koch’s Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation ($222,620, 2002-11).
Source:  Union of Concerned Scientists


James Inhofe - The senior senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe is a die-hard critic of climate change science. He has called global warming the 'greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." At the same time, the senator is one of the largest receivers of fossil fuel industry campaign funds. Over his career, he has received over $3,250,000 from the energy sector, including $1,600,000 from the oil and gas industry. That total included over $95,000 from the Koch Brothers. He famously used outdated data, even though it had been proven false, to make the claim that there was no scientific evidence of global warming.
Source: OpenSecrets, The Guardian, Newsweek

Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) - The NIPCC is a project funded by the Heartland Institute with the objective of presenting alternative science. The NIPCC differs from the UN's IPCC in several important ways, including (thanks to Skeptical Science):

• Its purpose is not to give clarity on climate science, as the IPCC does, but to critique the IPCC, according to the Heartland leaked documents
• The scientists working for the NIPCC get paid; the IPCC scientists don’t
• The NIPCC report only critiques papers published by deniers, whereas the IPCC critiques all papers, including those published by deniers. 

The Heartland Institute pays its scientists to disregard most climate science research and focus exclusively on the few "skeptic" studies which support their very narrow focus on poking holes in the IPCC report. One document in the Heartland leaks outlined the list of deniers being paid for their work on the NIPCC, including Craig Idso and Fred Singer.
Source: Greenpeace, Skeptical Science


S. Fred Singer - A long time climate change denier, Singer has been very active as a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry. He makes frequent appearances before government panels at the state and federal level with testimony contrary to the prevailing science. Singer is famous for claiming global warming was not real, then, when he was caught in the lie, changed his claim to saying that climate science community was a cabal that was silencing any scientist that disagreed with the 'alarmist' reports.  Singer receives $5000 per month plus expenses from the Heartland Institute.
Source: Newsweek, The Heartland Institute

Craig Idso -Idso heads the denial organization known as the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. He is also associated with the Heartland Institute, which pays him $11,600 per month.
Source: The Heartland Institute, More Heartland Institute

The Heritage Foundation - Heritage has received $535,000 from ExxonMobil (2001-11), $100,000 from General Motors (2003-07), and $3.69 million from Charles Koch's Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation (2001-10). They have also received funds from Donors Capital Fund ($41,000, 2002-10) and Donors Trust ($307,765, 2002-11).

Source: Huffington Post, Union of Concerned Scientists