Media Promote Global Warming Fraud

Media Promote Global Warming Fraud
By Cliff Kincaid
Feb 5, 2007

When it comes to Iraq, our media have been preoccupied with the issue of whether there was adequate intelligence to justify the invasion and if policy-makers made up evidence before the war. But on the matter of global intervention to stop global warming, there seems to be no need for scientific evidence to justify what is shaping up as a global carbon tax of 35 cents a gallon of gas on the American people.

It’s difficult to figure out which is the bigger fraud¯the U.N. or our media. Incredibly, the much-publicized United Nations climate change report, which blames global warming on people, has no published science to back it up.

The front page Washington Post story about the report waited until the 20th paragraph of a 21-paragraph story to mention that the “detailed scientific documentation” for the claim is not yet available and won’t be released “for a few months.”

A New York Times account waited until the 40th paragraph of a 44-paragraph story to disclose that “thousands of pages of technical background,” supposedly the basis for the alarming conclusions, would be released later in the year.

Now how many people read until almost the end of these articles to discover that the scientific evidence is not yet available? The odds are that many people didn’t get past the sensational New York Times headline, “Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal.’”

Clearly, we are supposed to accept all of this on faith.

In fact, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is officially sponsored by the U.N. Environmental Program, which once organized an “Environmental Sabbath” program so people could pay homage to the planet. The program included an exercise for children to sit around a tree, hold hands, and meditate.

The coverage of the IPCC report demonstrates how mainstream journalists have abandoned even a pretense of objectivity.

This reflects the influence of such figures as Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, who, at the recent so-called National Conference on Media Reform, said that the media should not cover both sides of the global warming debate.

However, some scientists are raising the alarm.

Canada’s National Post reports that astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young scientists, says the IPCC’s work is based on “speculation” and that he believes global warming is caused more by solar activity than the release of greenhouses gases like CO2.

The IPCC’s decidedly unscientific approach has come under attack from Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl, who declared, “In the past, scientists had to do their research before the implications for policymaking could have been derived from this research.”

Mocking the U.N. process, he commented, “Today, the vastly superior postmodern scientific method of the IPCC members allows them to publish the summary for policymakers first.”

A Google search of current news, however, turned up only two places where Motl’s criticism of the IPCC was mentioned¯a story carried by Fox News and attributed to Brit Hume, and a story. Hume cited the report.

The story by Kevin Mooney also quoted Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, as saying that issuing a conclusion before producing the evidence for that conclusion is completely improper and that a business which issued a report in such a fashion would be investigated by the government for fraud.

Senator James Inhofe, ranking Member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, called the IPCC report “the corruption of science for political gain” and said the process is completely lacking in scientific integrity.

He notes that page 4 of “Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work” includes the following: “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”

This means that the scientific data may be altered to conform with what has already been published.

Instead of highlighting the lack of scientific data to support the man-made global warming assertions, our media are trying to discredit critics of the report by trying to tie them to oil companies. Such stories never mention the billions of federal dollars being showered on advocates of the man-made global warming theory.

Pandering to the alarmists, Samuel Bodman, the Secretary of Energy in the Bush Administration, accepted the IPCC report and urged “global solutions” to the alleged problem.

One such “global solution” is a global carbon tax, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, administered and even collected by the U.N. One U.N.-sponsored report suggests a global tax amounting to 35 cents a gallon.

An international conference to promote global taxes, dubbed “solidarity levies,” is being held in Oslo, Norway, from February 6-7. An international tax on airline travel is already being implemented. One of the biggest state delegations to the conference comes from South Korea, whose foreign minister, Ban Ki-moon, took over in January as U.N. Secretary-General.

A supporter of “solidarity levies” to fund global causes before he became U.N. chief, Ban thinks the IPCC report requires an immediate response from the international community. A special climate change summit, where President Bush could be pressured to endorse a global carbon tax, may be held later this year.

Cliff Kincaid is Editor of Accuracy in Media
personally i dont need the "scientific" evidence because i have my own brain and eyes. I KNOW the carbon dioxide can cause atmospheric trouble because i know the chemistry, physics, and physical chemistry behind the problem. I also KNOW that giant quantities of carbon dioxide are being released all the time, and i also know that the weather is going a little doolally recently and the global average temperature is rising rather worryingly.

I think it's safe to assume it's our fault, and that it's happening.
I'd say that Kincaid claiming mainstream media are not objective is ludicrous. Any mainstream media piece I've seen has included skeptics for the sake of parity. From CNN, to CBC. In fact the only time I've seen any one sided coverage is from the likes of Fox News anchors or Glenn Beck. Documentaries which could be seen as one sided are a different story, I'd like to see these skeptics put one together, I'm sure someone must have thought of it by now. You'd think they would love to show all the flaws and oversteps with all the reputable scientists out there on their side of the story.

Kincaid himself has no right to call anyone out on objectivity. He writes for a right wing media outlet, and walks the line nicely.

It didn't take long for the fish to bite.

By the way, anyone who knows anything about statistics out there, would you happen to know the adjusted r-squared value for the models they[IPCC] use?
The government of the U.S. asked for people to write articles characterizing global warming as a fraud...c'mon now folks it's just some poor stooge trying to make a living...

Who's Funding Global Warming?

By Tara Lohan, AlterNet
Posted on February 5, 2007, Printed on February 5, 2007

Wearing hats shaped like smokestacks and carrying signs that said, "Coal Investments Cook the Climate," a group known as Billionaires for Coal raised awareness last week about the plans by TXU, a Dallas-based utility company, to build 11-new pulverized coal-fired power plants in Texas.
The activists delivered suitcases of coal, but the recipient of their gift was not TXU and they were a long way from Texas. Instead, their action took place in New York's financial district where they visited the headquarters of Merrill Lynch -- a company that is putting coal and profits above human health and climate change.
Merrill Lynch is one of three major financial institutions, along with Morgan Stanley and Citigroup, that have agreed to arrange the needed $11 billion to finance TXU's plants.
It is widely known among scientists and regulators that coal-fired power plants are the most polluting form of electricity and right now, the world needs every opportunity it can to move away from the production of more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Some say the impetus is on the government to regulate GHG emissions; others put the responsibility on utility companies. But organizations like Rainforest Action Network (RAN) believe that banks that fund polluting projects like TXU also need to be held accountable.
The recent action by Billionaires for Coal in New York begs the question: What is the role of the global finance industry when it comes to climate change? It also highlights the ripple effect of global warming -- more coal plants in Texas will be everyone's problem -- including Wall Street's.
Banking on Dirty Money
If TXU secures the necessary money and permits, their 11 plants will produce 78 million tons of CO2 emissions each year for the expected 50-year lifespan of the plants.
Let's put that number in perspective. According to Environmental Defense, TXU's projected output of 78 million tons of CO2 a year is more than entire countries, such as Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal. It is also the equivalent of putting 10 million Cadillac Escalades on the road or cutting and burning all the trees in a section of the Amazon the size of over 9 million football fields -- larger than the state of California.
"This is the U.S. and its insanity at its very greatest. We are facing a climate crisis," said Brianna Cayo Cotter of RAN. "We are standing at the edge of a cliff and this is the sort of project that just pushes us over."
TXU seems to be striving to become known as the largest corporate greenhouse gas emitter in the U.S. With mounting political pressure in the U.S. and growing international action, what kinds of institutions want to be associated with them?
So far, the only three officially committed to the project are Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley, and they are known as "lead arrangers," in charge of helping TXU get the $11 billion in financing.
RAN has sent letters to 56 global banks -- across the U.S., Canada, Europe, and even in Japan and Brazil -- urging banks to reject requests to finance the project.
In the Netherlands four banks were being approached for financing despite the fact that TXU's project will produce six times the pledged CO2 reductions of their country -- negating the efforts (six times over) of the Dutch people to limit their contributions to climate change.
According to Cotter, at least 18 banks have already responded that they have no interest in financing the plan, and not one has affirmed that they will. So far there are also three major banks on public record saying they are not on board -- Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of Montreal. Wachovia and Scotiabank are among those still on the fence.
Many banks make it their policy not to comment on clients and so have not responded. However, a little reading between the lines sometimes can provide a sense of their position.
The London-based HSBC became the world's first bank in 2005 to commit to becoming carbon neutral.
While they said the could not comment on TXU, they did say, "We regard climate change as the single largest environmental challenge facing the world this century and have undertaken a number of initiatives to ensure we play our role in combating it," wrote Michael Goeghegan, Group Chief Executive of HSBC.
HSBC reports that they are committed to complying with the Kyoto Protocol and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. They also have a Carbon Finance Strategy to assist in "a transition to financing low carbon and energy efficient projects," Goeghegan wrote. "We believe financial institutions will play an important role in the shift to cleaner energy and aspire to be among the leading financial institutions of a lower carbon economy."
Bank of America has taken things a step further by cutting emissions from the projects they fund. According to Dana Clark who heads RAN's global finance campaign, "At this point Bank of America has made the strongest commitment to combating climate change." The bank states that they have pledged to, "realize a seven percent reduction in indirect emissions ... within our energy and utility portfolio."
Merrill Lynch is on the opposite end of the spectrum, with no environmental policy, and Citigroup has gone from being a leader in the industry to having to play catch up, said Clark.
In 2004, Clark said, Citigroup had a pioneering environmental policy that covered forests, biodiversity, and climate issues, but these days, she said, their commitments are rather minimal.
"They are committed to reducing their own footprint," said Clark. "That means the direct emissions from their buildings -- turning off lights, recycling -- all well and good but they are not committed to looking at the climate impacts of their investments, loans, and advisory services."
Citigroup doesn't see helping to fund TXU's project to be in contradiction to the bank's environmental policy as long as the utility company gets all their necessary permits from the state.
"Their approach is thinking within the box," said Clark. "They've made commitments to reduce GHG emissions from their operations and yet they are turning around and funding a project that will emit 78 million tons of CO2 every year for the next 50 years -- that wipes out all the good things they are trying to do."
In the last few years, many banks in the global finance industry have begun to develop better environmental and social policies. "In the beginning, environmental policies were a lot about precluding banks from financing dirty oil pipelines or not being able to invest in illegal logging in Indonesia, which continue to be good things," said Cotter. "But the evolving notion of what a strong environmental policy is has changed."
That change has been the result of a surge in public awareness about the dangers of climate changed coupled with reports from leading experts, such as Jim Hansen of NASA and Sir Nicholas Stern of the United Kingdom, who have both concluded that decisive action needs to take place immediatley to change our carbon consumption within the next decade.
"This is a time when there is an imperative on the global finance sector to make a decision -- are they going to fund the future or are they going to support and profit from climate destructive activities?" asked Clark. "It is time they put in place policies to reduce the carbon intensity of their investments and put their resources toward more sustainable energy sources."
Texas' Problem is the World's Problem
According to the Department of Energy, there are 154 new coal plants in the works to be on-line by 2030 in the U.S. Not surprisingly, Texas is leading the way, with 19 currently proposed.
If TXU is able to successfully build their 11 plants in Texas, they are hoping to export their model and build an additional 13 coal-fired plants in other states, taking their emissions up to 92 million tons of C02 a year, and making them the largest corporate GHG emitter in the U.S. -- no small feat for a country that leads the world in emissions.
"This is a serious issue -- the polar bears are losing their homes, Inuit women can't breast feed, all over the world the effects of climate change are being felt in very serious ways and for banks to consider a project that would give us 78 million tons of GHG emissions every year is crazy," said Cotter.
The construction of new coal-fired power plants right now would lock residents into another 50 years of dirty energy at a time when the world is in agreement that we need to move toward cleaner, more sustainable energy choices.
"If we stop these plants from being built it will be even harder to get the other plants built under Bush/Cheney's 'clean coal' energy plan," said Cotter. "If we can stop a high profile project early on in the game then it will have an influence on whether this country goes down a path of no return on climate change by building more plants or whether we start acting sensibly and increase our efficiency and reduce our emissions."
The true cost of the plants will not just be the burden of global banks. There is an estimated $6 billion a year in externality costs associated with the TXU project. The GHG emissions will affect more that just Texas, as climate change is a problem shared globally, with the poorest people the most at risk first. Externality costs also take into consideration the health impacts of burning coal, including increased rates of asthma and premature deaths.
The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, released this fall came to decisive conclusions about what global warming may cost financially. The U.K.'s Guardian summarized his findings:
  • Unabated climate change could cost the world at least 5 percent of GDP each year; if more dramatic predictions come to pass, the cost could be more than 20 percent of GDP.
  • The cost of reducing emissions could be limited to around 1 percent of global GDP; people could be charged more for carbon-intensive goods.
  • Each tonne of CO2 we emit causes damages worth at least $85, but emissions can be cut at a cost of less than $25 a ton.
  • Shifting the world onto a low-carbon path could eventually benefit the economy by $2.5 trillion a year.
  • By 2050, markets for low-carbon technologies could be worth at least $500bn.
  • What we do now can have only a limited effect on the climate over the next 40 or 50 years, but what we do in the next 10-20 years can have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century.
The Guaridan concluded that "The benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs." From an economic perspective, the only way to avoid disaster is to act immediately -- something it seems world financial institutions would be keen to do.
But so far, most banks have been extremely shortsighted.
"The problem that I have with people saying that we have abundant coal and it's cheap so we should burn it -- is that it is not cheap," said Clark. "There are massive costs that are being externalized to the rest of society and the global environment that aren't getting factored into the analysis."
Texans seem well aware of the repercussions of the 11 new plants, so much so that virtually everyone besides TXU and the governor are opposing it.
The mayors of Dallas, Fort Worth, and Houston are against the project, along with over 30 municipalities representing nearly 7 million people. Even the business community is concerned. Over 20 prominent business leaders in the Dallas area have formed Texas Business for Clean Air.
The permitting process for TXU's project was fast-tracked by executive order of Gov. Perry who received sizable contributions from the coal industry, including TXU in his recent re-election bid. "The permitting process was cut down from 1.5 years to six months and drastically limits the public's ability to have a voice in the process," Clark said.
"There is no carbon regulation in Texas or at the federal level," she added. "So it is deemed OK that these plants will emit 78 million tons of CO2 a year. Everyone knows the handwriting is on the wall and once there is a new administration things will change. So seeing that, this fast-tracking is a push to bring these plants on line before there is meaningful legislation to curb GHG emissions."
TXU may have the political clout to get the permits they need from the state, but without support from global banks they can't fund their polluting project. So groups like Billionaires for Coal, Environmental Defense, RAN, and dozens of community and regional organizations will continue to demand that financial institutions be responsible for the destruction they fund. And the rest of us should start getting vocal as well. After all, we'll be paying for it, too.
"Our global climate affects every single one of us. Whether it does today, it definitely will tomorrow. There is a growing movement around the world to stop global warming and the U.S. has been at the back of the gang and has been holding things up," said Cotter.
"We have been stalemating and making global regulations next to impossible and this is a chance for U.S. citizens to stand up and say we don't agree with the direction our country is heading in terms of dirty energy and we are going to take action to stop climate change and the United States' contributions to it."
To learn more about TXU or to take action, visit RAN or Environmental Defense.
Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.

Wether it is happening or not is irrelevant. Nothing will be done about it till it is too late aka cod stocks
Climate: Bush Allies Buying Science, Denying Truth

International News / Earth News
Date: Feb 04, 2007 - 01:02 PM . Climate: Bush Allies Buying Science, Denying Truth

- Chris Floyd - As the Guardian reports, the good folks at AEI - whose members were instrumental in bringing us the "splendid little war" in Iraq and are now agitating for an even more glorious bloodletting in Iran - are offering scientists and economists $10,000 each (plus extras) to tear down the IPCC report and snowjob the hoi polloi into believing that the crack pipe of the Carbon Era will never be empty.

Bush Backers Offer Payoffs
to Undercut Global Warming

Chris Floyd

t r u t h o u t | UK Correspondent
Saturday, 03 February 2007

The new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just been released, and it looks like bad news for the home team, i.e., the entire human race. Things are going to get hotter, coastlines are going to go under, deserts are going to get wider, and millions if not billions of people are going to be on the move. In need, in conflict, in increasingly desperate straits - and it's all our own fault. What's more, the effects set in motion by our epic debauch with fossil fuels are going to keep on keeping on - although the worst outcomes can still be avoided, if the leaders of the world can bestir themselves to take action to slow the poisoning of the planet.
This is the consensus of more than 2,500 leading scientists from more than 30 countries - including the United States. But not to worry: That nattering nest of neo-cons, the American Enterprise Institute - which also functions as an employment agency for the Bush White House, sending innumerable nabobs into the higher reaches and greasy guts of the administration - has come up with a perfect solution to this threat to the life of the world: bribing scientists to say it ain't so.
As the Guardian reports, the good folks at AEI - whose members were instrumental in bringing us the "splendid little war" in Iraq and are now agitating for an even more glorious bloodletting in Iran - are offering scientists and economists $10,000 each (plus extras) to tear down the IPCC report and snowjob the hoi polloi into believing that the crack pipe of the Carbon Era will never be empty.
AEI, its coffers bulging with funding from Exxon Mobil (whose former honcho, Lee Raymond, is vice-chairman of the group's board of trustees), is flashing ten grand (plus "travel expenses" and "additional payments") to any scientist, economist or policy analyst willing to rip the IPCC report as "resistant to reasonable criticism - and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work." These bold global warming revisionists can trouser the loot in exchange for their scholarly contributions to an "independent review" of the IPCC report, the Guardian reports.
Here we see the Bush gang playing the usual double game. With the weight of virtually the entire scientific world against him, George W. Bush has finally, grudgingly, acknowledged that there might be a little problem with oceans boiling and cities submerging after all. So the tack has been a sudden flip-flop: from denying that global warming is a reality to claiming that he is actually leading the fight against this atmospheric terrorism. Thus, after spending months trying (and partially succeeding) in watering down the IPCC report, the Bush-appointed US delegation to the conference signed off on the document in the end.
Now, through the AEI - and other proxies no doubt already cranking up in the background - the Bushists bring the sucker punch: "Yeah, sure, there's global warming - who would ever deny that? - but this IPCC thing, although certainly a worthy endeavor, is just a little bit over the top. There are 'reasonable criticisms' to be made of its analytical models and its perhaps somewhat too melodramatic conclusions. There's nothing out there that good old-fashioned American moxie - and entirely voluntary efforts by our ever-altruistic corporate sector - cannot overcome."
Obviously, the AEI operates on the Cheneyian "One Percent" principle: if there is even an infinitesimal chance that the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming could be wrong, why then, we must act as if that remote likelihood is a reality. It is truly remarkable how the radical zealots who form the Bush "base" treat every single issue as an article of faith, an occasion for sectarian combat. The scientific examination of data from the natural world indicates that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level," as the IPCC report states. This is not a political position; it's simply an observation of reality. And yet because the Radical Rightists (including neo-cons, Christian extremists, militarists, and the assorted gasbags of the right-wing media echo chamber) have decided that global warming is somehow a "leftist" or "liberal" concept, they seek to denounce it, or deride it, or undermine it at every turn. Acceptance of this reality somehow threatens the highly circumscribed, narrowly blinkered worldview that seems to be so important to their emotional security.
Then again, maybe it's just the cold, hard cash from the black gold boys that trips their triggers. For behind almost every "scholarly" and "scientific" objection to global warming, you will find an ooze of oil bigger than the Exxon Valdez slick, which, as the Guardian also reported this week, is still fouling the waters of Alaska. (A new US government study "found more than 26,600 gallons of oil remaining at Prince William Sound. Researchers say it is declining at a rate of only 4% a year and even slower in the Gulf of Alaska" - 18 years after the tanker ran aground, the paper notes.) No industry will be more affected by efforts to contain and reduce the use of fossil fuels than the corporate oil empires, whose might and worth surpasses that of many, if not most, nations. Just last week, Exxon Mobil - the munificent benefactors of AEI - recorded the largest annual corporate profit in history: $39.5 billion. Surely the protection of such a nest egg is worth a little bending of reality by a few bribed nabobs in lab coats.
But the sucker punch doesn't stop there. Last week, Bush took another great leap forward in his relentless construction of a presidential dictatorship by signing an executive order that will place a political commissar in every government agency to ensure that the party line is obeyed. Thus, no matter what noble-sounding rhetorical positions the administration adopts publicly on global warming, the devil will be in the details as the Bush commissars twist, thwart, block and gut any fact-based findings and regulations that might be displeasing to the White House and its radical base.
The IPCC report on global warming is, ironically, most chilling. Thanks to the many years of obstruction by the well-funded apologists for corporate power, it is now too late to arrest the process. The effects, not only on weather patterns and sea levels but also on the food chain that sustains life on the planet, will be - are already - dire and profound. The only thing we can do now is to take urgent action to begin to mitigate the worst effects, to prepare for and soften the unavoidable economic, political and social upheaval that is coming. The struggle against the effects of global warming is one that could actually unite the human race in a common effort against a common danger. Still, it is a danger that threatens not only the present inhabitants of our common home, but also those "future generations" which we all profess to be so concerned about.
The scientific consensus is clear; finding a political consensus on mitigation will be immensely harder, perhaps impossible. But surely it is worth the effort. Yet even now, the corporate lords and their sycophants are trying to strangle these efforts in the cradle, by destroying the scientific foundation upon which any political solutions must be built. It may be politically expedient for them to do this; it may be financially profitable; it may even be emotionally comforting. But it is also - to speak plainly and with no addition - a highly despicable act.

Chris Floyd
is an American journalist. His weekly political column, "Global Eye," ran in the Moscow Times from 1996 to 2006. His work has appeared in print and online in venues all over the world, including The Nation, Counterpunch, Columbia Journalism Review, the Christian Science Monitor, Il Manifesto, the Bergen Record and many others. His story on Pentagon plans to foment terrorism won a Project Censored award in 2003. He is the author of Empire Burlesque: High Crimes and Low Comedy in the Bush Imperium, and is co-founder and editor of the "Empire Burlesque" political blog.
honestly dark, do you think it helps to cut and paste giant quantities of text into the threads? it would be helpful if you could summarise, or give us your own views
If you could convince him of that, would you mind using same logic on Sanctus?

Similar Threads

Global Warming?
by crit13 | Mar 23rd, 2007
Global Warming
by jimmoyer | Oct 31st, 2006