The dimensions of denial

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
Where and from whom does the Global Warming denial movement come from

It originates from people like Fred Seitz who spent the 1980s working for R.J. Reynolds, hiding the health risks from smoking.

Fred Seitz, the $45 million man – Deltoid

Al Gore and others have said, but generally without offering evidence, that the people who deny the dangers of climate change are like the tobacco executives who denied the dangers of smoking. The example of Frederick Seitz, described here in full for the first time, shows that the two camps overlap in ways that are quite literal — and lucrative. Seitz earned approximately $585,000 for his consulting work for R. J. Reynolds, according to company documents unearthed by researchers for the Greenpeace Web site ExxonSecrets.org and confirmed by Seitz. Meanwhile, during the years he consulted for Reynolds, Seitz continued to draw a salary as president emeritus at Rockefeller University, an institution founded in 1901 and subsidized with profits from Standard Oil, the predecessor corporation of ExxonMobil.

By going through the tobacco documents archive, I was able to piece together a rather damning sequence of documents which shows exactly what Seitz has been about.

Seitz signs on:

May 1979
Pg 1
There are abundant reasons for R-J-R to place a priority on research, particularly on smoking and health research. One is that our sense of integrity dictates that we respond directly to a fundamental attack on our business. Another is that if we can refute the criticisms against cigarettes, we may remove government’s excuse for imposing heavy taxes on the product. … A third reason is that there are a large number of crucial questions that need scientific answers in the area of smoking and health.

Pg 7
In evaluating and monitoring the special projects that we fund — particularly the sole-sponsorship programs — R.J. Reynolds Industries has secured the services of a permanent consultant — Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of Rockefeller

DATE: August 31, 1989
I spoke to Bill Hobbs about arranging an appointment for you with Dr. Fred Seitz, former head of Rockefeller University and the principal scientific advisor to the R. J. Reynolds medical research program. Bill told me that Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice. Bill said that he would strongly recommend your speaking to Dr. Alfred G. Knudson Jr. of the CTR Scientific Advisory Board.

who then teamed with Exxon in the 1990s

George Monbiot on climate change and Big Tobacco | Environment | The Guardian

ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable corporation. Its sales now amount to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil, and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer or that HIV causes Aids. So what's its strategy?

The website Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company's official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have. These organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled "junk science". The findings they welcome are labelled "sound science".

Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known websites and lobby groups as TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Some of those on the list have names that make them look like grassroots citizens' organisations or academic bodies: the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, for example. One or two of them, such as the Congress of Racial Equality, are citizens' organisations or academic bodies, but the line they take on climate change is very much like that of the other sponsored groups. While all these groups are based in America, their publications are read and cited, and their staff are interviewed and quoted, all over the world.

By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus.

Other wealthy benefactors of the denial fraud include.

Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort | Now | Drexel University

- The Koch brothers

- Conservative foundations
Conservative foundations have bank-rolled denial. The largest and most consistent funders of organizations orchestrating climate change denial are a number of well-known conservative foundations, such as the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. These foundations promote ultra-free-market ideas in many realms.

- Donors Trust: which allows individuals and corporations to hide their involvement in Global Warming denial.
Funding has shifted to pass through untraceable sources. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to denial organizations by the Donors Trust has risen dramatically. Donors Trust is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation now provides about 25% of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations engaged in promoting systematic denial of climate change.

Most funding for denial efforts is untraceable. Despite extensive data compilation and analyses, only a fraction of the hundreds of millions in contributions to climate change denying organizations can be specifically accounted for from public records. Approximately 75% of the income of these organizations comes from unidentifiable sources.

But certainly a lot is still coming from the Kochs and ExxonMobil:
Koch and ExxonMobil have recently pulled back from publicly visible funding. From 2003 to 2007, the Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding climate-change denial organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions.

So when members like Locutus go on endlessly about a fraud involving Global Warming, keep in mind what side that fraud is actually on.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
100,544
6,298
113
Moccasin Flats
How come nobody talks about the benefits of alleged global warming?

By sweeping benefits under rug only the negatives are mentioned creating emotional instability of the masses leaving them susceptible to suggestion and waiting to be told how to react


Super simple to program Billions into submission by using fear.

Just like the terrorist malarky.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
It's also very interesting to see the role that tobacco giant Philip Morris and another central figure in the denial fraud, Fred Singer played in the creation of the Global Warming denial fraud.

George Monbiot on climate change and Big Tobacco | Environment | The Guardian

To this end, she had hired a public relations company called APCO. She had attached the advice it had given her. APCO warned that: "No matter how strong the arguments, industry spokespeople are, in and of themselves, not always credible or appropriate messengers."

So the fight against a ban on passive smoking had to be associated with other people and other issues. Philip Morris, APCO said, needed to create the impression of a "grassroots" movement - one that had been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight "overregulation". It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as just one "unfounded fear" among others, such as concerns about pesticides and cellphones. APCO proposed to set up "a national coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of 'junk science'. Coalition will address credibility of government's scientific studies, risk-assessment techniques and misuse of tax dollars ... Upon formation of Coalition, key leaders will begin media outreach, eg editorial board tours, opinion articles, and brief elected officials in selected states."

Fred Singer was working with APCO on the campaign to attack the science on second hand smoke and health risks and would use the tactic from there to great effect in Global Warming denial.

By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens' group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. It was important, further letters stated, "to ensure that TASSC has a diverse group of contributors"; to "link the tobacco issue with other more 'politically correct' products"; and to associate scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with "broader questions about government research and regulations" - such as "global warming", "nuclear waste disposal" and "biotechnology". APCO would engage in the "intensive recruitment of high-profile representatives from business and industry, scientists, public officials, and other individuals interested in promoting the use of sound science"

Incredibly well funded the denial movement has created a series of fake public advocacy groups that are in fact largely industry controlled lobby groups.

And the level of dishonesty established at the start extends all the way through the movement.

By September 1993, APCO had produced a "Plan for the Public Launching of TASSC". The media launch would not take place in "Washington, DC or the top media markets of the country. Rather, we suggest creating a series of aggressive, decentralised launches in several targeted local and regional markets across the country. This approach ... avoids cynical reporters from major media: less reviewing/challenging of TASSC messages."

The media coverage, the public relations company hoped, would enable TASSC to "establish an image of a national grassroots coalition". In case the media asked hostile questions, APCO circulated a sheet of answers, drafted by Philip Morris. The first question was:

"Isn't it true that Philip Morris created TASSC to act as a front group for it?

"A: No, not at all. As a large corporation, PM belongs to many national, regional, and state business, public policy, and legislative organisations. PM has contributed to TASSC, as we have with various groups and corporations across the country."

There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip Morris's consultants. "Junk science" meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. "Sound science" meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive. Both lobbies recognised that their best chance of avoiding regulation was to challenge the scientific consensus. As a memo from the tobacco company Brown and Williamson noted, "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." Both industries also sought to distance themselves from their own campaigns, creating the impression that they were spontaneous movements of professionals or ordinary citizens: the "grassroots".

This includes the tactics used here and elsewhere in Global Warming denial.

It also firmly links Big Tobacco with oil corporations in a fraud to conceal the true costs of massive emissions of CO2.

But the connection goes further than that. TASSC, the "coalition" created by Philip Morris, was the first and most important of the corporate-funded organisations denying that climate change is taking place. It has done more damage to the campaign to halt it than any other body.

TASSC did as its founders at APCO suggested, and sought funding from other sources. Between 2000 and 2002 it received $30,000 from Exxon. The website it has financed - JunkScience.com - has been the main entrepot for almost every kind of climate-change denial that has found its way into the mainstream press. It equates environmentalists with Nazis, communists and terrorists. It flings at us the accusations that could justifably be levelled against itself: the website claims, for example, that it is campaigning against "faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas". I have lost count of the number of correspondents who, while questioning manmade global warming, have pointed me there.

And the same man who has been so busy for more than two decades telling us that Global Warming isn't real, isn't serious and isn't our responsibility also worked with Philip Morris so that children can be exposed to second hand smoke potentially harming them.

The president of Seitz's Science and Environmental Policy Project is a maverick environmental scientist called S Fred Singer. He has spent the past few years refuting evidence for manmade climate change. It was he, for example, who published the misleading claim that most of the world's glaciers are advancing, which landed David Bellamy in so much trouble when he repeated it last year. He also had connections with the tobacco industry. In March 1993, APCO sent a memo to Ellen Merlo, the vice-president of Philip Morris, who had just commissioned it to fight the Environmental Protection Agency: "As you know, we have been working with Dr Fred Singer and Dr Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ..."

Singer's article, entitled Junk Science at the EPA, claimed that "the latest 'crisis' - environmental tobacco smoke - has been widely criticised as the most shocking distortion of scientific evidence yet". He alleged that the Environmental Protection Agency had had to "rig the numbers" in its report on passive smoking. This was the report that Philip Morris and APCO had set out to discredit a month before Singer wrote his article.

I have no evidence that Fred Singer or his organisation have taken money from Philip Morris. But many of the other bodies that have been sponsored by Exxon and have sought to repudiate climate change were also funded by the tobacco company. Among them are some of the world's best-known "thinktanks": the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation and the Independent Institute, as well as George Mason University's Law and Economics Centre. I can't help wondering whether there is any aspect of conservative thought in the United States that has not been formed and funded by the corporations.

Once again look at the massive amount of Global Warming denial nonsense being posted by members like Locutus here and put it in perspective with the well established industry funded and directed fraud to deny the credible science of Global Warming.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
100,544
6,298
113
Moccasin Flats
It's a blast watching Alarmists go through the Kubler-Ross stages of grief.

Going by the result of my vastly inaccurate models it is alarming that the alarmists are going through the denial and anger stages so rapidly.

Bell curve style.
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
When you can't prove your case.. you develop a case against those who deny it. It obfuscates the tawdry pseudo science of AGW with conspiracy theories and innuendo.

It only shows how sleazy and dishonest the AGW lobby has become.. and how desperate.
 
Last edited:

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
When you can't prove your case.. you develop a case against those who deny your case. It obfuscates the tawdry psuedo science of AGW with conspiracy theories.

It only shows how sleazy and dishonest the AGW lobby has become.. and how desperate.

Right out of the denial fraud mantra...see above.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
What do you have in the way of 100% undeniable evidence of AGW?

In your own words please.

You're asking for absolutes from a discipline that by its very nature remains open to question.

Nothing is closed in science, what is important is how much confidence there us in prevailing theories which are always open to testing. The amount of data and underlying physical principles give a very high confidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real.

On the other hand the denial fraud is almost entirely a fabrication of the industries that would be economically impacted by admitting responsibility for causing damage that is already on a scale hard to quantify.

In the relativity of wrong, Global Warming is on one side of the factual spectrum supported by years of research and fundamental breakthroughs in the understanding of the physical makeup of the Universe(which allow us to communicate this way) and denial fraud is at the other end where there are virtually no facts in support.

The only thing keeping the denial fraud going is massive funding from industry.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
100,544
6,298
113
Moccasin Flats
Well? Let's look and see who calls themselves "climate scientists" shall we?

Iowa State University has a climate science program that has been referred to on these forums so let's look at who they are.

Climate Science Team Members (At a Glance)
Sort by: Last Name | First Name | Department | College |
Last First Department Email College
* * * * *
Ackerman Ralph EEOB racker@iastate.edu LAS
Al-Kaisi Mahdi Agronomy malkaisi@iastate.edu CALS
Anderson Christopher Agronomy cjames@iastate.edu CALS
Anderson Craig Psychology caa@iastate.edu LAS
Arora Rajeev Horticulture rarora@iastate.edu CALS
Arritt Ray Agronomy rwarritt@iastate.edu CALS
Babcock Bruce CARD babcock@iastate.edu admin
Brown Robert Bioeconomy Institute rcbrown3@iastate.edu admin
Burns Robert ABE rburns@iastate.edu CALS/Engr
Ceylan Halil CCEE hceylan@iastate.edu Engr
Chen T. -C. (Mike) GEAT tmchen@iastate.edu LAS
Crumpton William EEOB crumpton@iastate.edu LAS
Cruse Rick Agronomy rmc@iastate.edu admin
Danielson Brent EEOB jessie@iastate.edu LAS
Debinski Diane EEOB debinski@iastate.edu LAS
DiSalvo Jeni WCEO/ISU Adv. Comm disalvo@iastate.edu LAS
Dixon Philip Stat pdixon@iastate.edu LAS
Elmore Roger Agronomy relmore@iastate.edu CALS
Engle David NREM dme@iastate.edu CALS
Flory Dave LAS Meteor flory@iastate.edu LAS
Fox Rodney CBE rofox@iastate.edu Engr
Franz Kristie GEAT kfranz@iastate.edu LAS
Gallus Bill GEAT wgallus@iastate.edu LAS
Grewell David ABE dgrewell@iastate.edu CALS/Engr
Gutowski Bill GEAT gutowski@iastate.edu LAS
Halverson Larry Plant and Path larryh@iastate.edu CALS
Harpole Stan EEOB harpole@iastate.edu LAS
Helmers Matt ABE mhelmers@iastate.edu CALS/Engr
Herzmann Daryl Agronomy akrherz@iastate.edu staff
Hofmockel Kirsten EEOB khof@iastate.edu LAS
Hornbuckle Brian Agronomy bkh@iastate.edu CALS
Horton Bob Agronomy rhorton@iatate.edu CALS
Hurburgh Charles ABE tatry@iastate.edu CALS/Engr
Isenhart Tom NREM isenhart@iastate.edu CALS
Jacobson Carl GEAT cejac@iastate.edu LAS
Janzen Fred EEOB fjanzen@iastate.edu LAS
Kaiser Mark Stat mskaiser@iastate.edu LAS
Kane Kevin ISU GIS Facility kkane@iastate.edu staff
Kanwar Ramesh ABE rskanwar@iastate.edu CALS/Engr
Kling Cathy CARD Econ ckling@iastate.edu LAS
Kothari Suresh Elect. & Comp. Eng. kothari@iastate.edu Engr
Lamkey Kendall Agronomy krlamkey@iastate.edu CALS
Liebman Matt Agronomy mliebman@iastate.edu CALS
Lubberstedt Thomas Agronomy thomasl@iastate.edu CALS
Maitra Ranjan Stat maitra@iastate.edu LAS
McGuire Jean ISU Ext. Comm jmcguire@iastate.edu staff
Miguez Fernando Agronomy femiguez@iastate.edu CALS
Miller Gerald CALS Admin soil@iastate.edu admin
Miranowski John Econ jmirski@iastate.edu LAS
Moloney Kirk EEOB kmoloney@iastate.edu LAS
Nusser Sarah Stat nusser@iastate.edu LAS
Oliver David * doliver@iastate.edu admin
Sarkar Partha Aerospace Engineering ppsarkar@iastate.edu Engr
Sauer Tom NLAE tom.sauer@ars.usda.gov staff
Schnable Pat Agronomy schnable@iastate.edu CALS
Schulte Lisa NREM lschulte@iastate.edu CALS
Schultz **** NREM rschultz@iastate.edu CALS
Simpkins Bill GEAT bsimp@iastate.edu LAS
Spalding Martin GDCB mspaldin@iastate.edu LAS
Subramaniam Shankar Engineering shankar@iastate.edu ME
Tabatabai Ali Agronomy malit@iastate.edu CALS
Takle Gene Agronomy/GEAT gstakle@iastate.edu CALS/LAS
Taylor Elwynn Agronomy setaylor@iastate.edu CALS
Thompson Michael Agronomy mlthomps@iastate.edu CALS
Tim U. Sunday ABE tim@iastate.edu CALS/Engr
Tomer Mark NLAE mark.tomer@ars.usda.gov staff
Valenzuela Nicole EEOB nvalenzu@iastate.edu LAS
Wanamaker Alan GEAT adw@iastate.edu LAS
Westgate Mark Agronomy westgate@iastate.edu CALS
Wilsey Brian EEOB bwilsey@iastate.edu LAS
Wu Xiaoqing GEAT wuxq@iastate.edu LAS
* * * * *
Which people listed as "climate scientists" have a discipline in a climate related earth science?
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
Some more on the dimensions of the denial fraud.

Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change | Environment | theguardian.com

Conservative groups may have spent up to $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change, according to the first extensive study into the anatomy of the anti-climate effort.

The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires, often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change. Such financial support has hardened conservative opposition to climate policy, ultimately dooming any chances of action from Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet, the study found.

“I call it the climate-change counter movement,” said the author of the study, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle. “It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort.”

Brulle's study, published on Friday in the journal Climatic Change, offers the most definitive exposure to date of the political and financial forces blocking American action on climate change. Still, there are big gaps.

It was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said. “Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.”

Some of the think tanks on Brulle's list – such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) – said they had no institutional position on climate change and did not control the output of their scholars. In addition, Brulle acknowledged that he was unable to uncover the full extent of funding sources to the effort to oppose action on climate change. About three-quarters of the funds were routed through trusts or other mechanisms that assure anonymity to donors – a trend Brulle described as disturbing and a threat to democracy.

There's a very good reason you can't debate this issue here or other places without it turning nasty or devolving into idiocy as can be seen in this thread already. Deniers aren't interested in genuine debate that would soon expose their lie, they're only really interested in delay of action that will cost the most wealthy some of their wealth.

Well? Let's look and see who calls themselves "climate scientists" shall we?

Iowa State University has a climate science program that has been referred to on these forums so let's look at who they are.

I'd much rather stick to topic and discuss the huge fraud you're just a tiny cog in.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
100,544
6,298
113
Moccasin Flats
Some more on the dimensions of the denial fraud.

Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change | Environment | theguardian.com





There's a very good reason you can't debate this issue here or other places without it turning nasty or devolving into idiocy as can be seen in this thread already. Deniers aren't interested in genuine debate that would soon expose their lie, they're only really interested in delay of action that will cost the most wealthy some of their wealth.

I'm interested in engaging in discussing the facts on AGW. Got any?

Some more on the dimensions of the denial fraud.

Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change | Environment | theguardian.com





There's a very good reason you can't debate this issue here or other places without it turning nasty or devolving into idiocy as can be seen in this thread already. Deniers aren't interested in genuine debate that would soon expose their lie, they're only really interested in delay of action that will cost the most wealthy some of their wealth.

I'd much rather stick to topic and discuss the huge fraud you're just a tiny cog in.
read the post again and we'll settle up on who and what climate science is comprised of.

You gave me a red for providing a genuine list of self proclaimed climate scientists?

I see at least one meteorologist. What do all those agronomists have to do with climate?

Climate Science Program: Iowa State University
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
It is not just special interests that doubt the system. The governments went along with
the pro global warming crowd and promoted the position. The whole environmental
deal was done to sell new cars, new fridges and promote walking everywhere and God
knows what else
Then comes information that some of these findings were little more the propaganda
and the stuff of what more contributions were worth. Government and the Green
movement or new religion has lost its credibility with many of us. While I don't believe in
wasting or polluting I don't subscribe to the notion that we have to all go round in sack cloth
and ashes repenting for enjoying ourselves. I will let religious zealots do that for me.
When these people spew this green phony information crap I feel like going outside and
letting my Silverado run for half an hour.
To think we can master world climate changes that are already normal changes is nonsense.
Lets all go to the coast and stop the tide from coming in We can lump it in with the other guys
and drink some patriot beer or something on the beach.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
The Canadian dimension of the denial fraud.

While the Harper government can't come out officially and deny the existence of something so serious and with such a firm evidentiary foundation, conservative government members often show a contempt for the issue.

When Will Harper's People Stop Denying Climate Change? | Cameron Fenton

On a global scale, food security in the age of climate change is a serious concern with reports warning that climate change could drive up food prices and lead to millions of people living in a state of food insecurity. In the context of this agricultural insecurity, Gerry Ritz, Canada's Minister for Agriculture, told the House of Commons last week that "this cold weather can't last forever. This global warming has to stop some time".

Ritz's commentary is bizarre, scientifically flawed and ridiculous. For someone with the political responsibility of overseeing Canada's agricultural sector to lack a basic understanding of climate science, one of the greatest threats to food security, is beyond bad politics -- it's dangerous. What's more worrying though, is rather than being the exception, Ritz's view seems more and more like the norm for Canada's governing party.

In the same week that Minister Ritz made his comments to the house, fellow Conservative Member of Parliament Gordon O'Connor spoke out in a committee meeting, telling fellow MPs that his "problem is with the words 'climate change.' I don't know what those words mean because they're a buzz phrase. Climate change. If we're talking about what is our preparedness for natural disasters, that's one thing, but climate change, if you want to talk about the climate, the climate always changes. It goes hot. It goes cold, etc."

O'Connor's comments came during a debate on whether or not Canada should task the Parliamentary Budget Officer to "undertake a study, on behalf of the Committee, to investigate the effects of climate change on Federal Government operations and to forecast the cost of climate change to programs such as the Disaster Financial Assistance Program or Military Disaster Assistance and other Public Safety emergency measures operations."

In other words, to see how much extreme weather and other climate impacts could cost Canada in the coming years. Given that in 2013, Canada was hit by the most expensive natural disaster in national history, and racked up a bill due of $3.2 billion due to climate-related disasters a report like this seems like the rational first step towards sound climate adaptation policies. Instead Diane Ablonczy, Mark Adler, Jay Aspin, Gordon O'Connor, Tilly O'Neill Gordon and Bernard Trottier -- all Conservative Members of Parliament -- voted to oppose the motion.

It really seems as if the conservative government as a whole has contempt for the interests of Canadians on this issue.

CBC News - Climate change warnings met with denial from Ottawa, NDP says

But the New Democrats' environment critic isn't so sure the Harper government is listening.

"I'm not hopeful that they're seeing it as a clarion call," Leslie said on Parliament Hill Monday.

Federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq defended her government's record Monday during question period.

"Since 2006 we have invested more than $10 billion in green infrastructure, energy efficiency, adaption, clean technology, and cleaner fuels," Aglukkaq said.

But Leslie accused the minister of offering up the same old answers.

"I think they show a real denier mentality and I use the word 'denier' on purpose, because I think if you are failing to act on climate change then you are denying it's a problem," Leslie said.

Keep in mind that the effects of Global Warming are already severe and are projected to get much worse as we continue to drive the process along. The conservative government is well aware that they have no plan to control CO2 emissions and Canada's contribution to the crisis will soar in coming years due to inaction from the conservative government.

Canada's carbon emissions projected to soar by 2030 | Environment | theguardian.com

Canada's carbon emissions will soar 38% by 2030 mainly due to expanding tar sands projects, according to the government's own projections.

In a new report (pdf) to the United Nations, the Harper administration says it expects emissions of 815million tonnes of CO2 in 2030, up from 590Mt in 1990. Emissions from the fast-growing tar sands sector is projected to quadruple between 2005 and 2030, reaching 137Mt a year, more than Belgium and many other countries, the report shows.

Worse, Canada is likely under-reporting its emissions. An investigation in 2013 found that Canada's reported emissions from its natural gas sector, the world's third largest, could be missing as much as 212Mt in 2011 alone.

"Canada appears to have vastly underestimated fugitive emissions (leaks) from gas exploration," possibly because of "inadequate accounting methodology " according to the Climate Action Tracker analysis done by Germany's Climate Analytics, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Dutch-based energy institute Ecofys.

Canadian Tim Ball is another prominent Global Warming denier with close ties to the oil sector.

Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball) | DeSmogBlog

It is not just special interests that doubt the system. The governments went along with
the pro global warming crowd and promoted the position. The whole environmental
deal was done to sell new cars, new fridges and promote walking everywhere and God
knows what else
Then comes information that some of these findings were little more the propaganda
and the stuff of what more contributions were worth. Government and the Green
movement or new religion has lost its credibility with many of us. While I don't believe in
wasting or polluting I don't subscribe to the notion that we have to all go round in sack cloth
and ashes repenting for enjoying ourselves. I will let religious zealots do that for me.
When these people spew this green phony information crap I feel like going outside and
letting my Silverado run for half an hour.
To think we can master world climate changes that are already normal changes is nonsense.
Lets all go to the coast and stop the tide from coming in We can lump it in with the other guys
and drink some patriot beer or something on the beach.

That's the point, the "information" didn't come from objective sources, it came from industry generated and supported think tanks that do spin not science. Global Warming hasn't gone away and the effects are already significant.

And the changes going on aren't normal, CO2 is the most important persistent gas in the atmosphere for regulating the Earth's average temperature, even minor changes in concentration can have huge consequences in combination with feedbacks. Seeing how bad it'll get in the future because doing something about it now is politically and economically uncomfortable is unsupportable.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Keep in mind that the effects of Global Warming are already severe and are projected to get much worse as we continue to drive the process along. The conservative government is well aware that they have no plan to control CO2 emissions and Canada's contribution to the crisis will soar in coming years due to inaction from the conservative government.


Go Canada!
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
100,544
6,298
113
Moccasin Flats
I think Cobalt kid needs to have a few sessions with a climate psychologist. Whatever the f-ck that is but there really are psychologists who call themselves climate scientists.