The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:07 PM GMT on November 25, 2009

Share this Blog
33
+

In 1954, the tobacco industry realized it had a serious problem. Thirteen scientific studies had been published over the preceding five years linking smoking to lung cancer. With the public growing increasingly alarmed about the health effects of smoking, the tobacco industry had to move quickly to protect profits and stem the tide of increasingly worrisome scientific news. Big Tobacco turned to one the world's five largest public relations firms, Hill and Knowlton, to help out. Hill and Knowlton designed a brilliant Public Relations (PR) campaign to convince the public that smoking is not dangerous. They encouraged the tobacco industry to set up their own research organization, the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), which would produce science favorable to the industry, emphasize doubt in all the science linking smoking to lung cancer, and question all independent research unfavorable to the tobacco industry. The CTR did a masterful job at this for decades, significantly delaying and reducing regulation of tobacco products. George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, who is President Obama's nominee to head the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), wrote a meticulously researched 2008 book called, Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. In the book, he wrote: "the industry understood that the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad. Create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion. Throw mud at the anti-smoking research under the assumption that some of it is bound to stick. And buy time, lots of it, in the bargain". The title of Michaels' book comes from a 1969 memo from a tobacco company executive: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy". Hill and Knowlton, on behalf of the tobacco industry, had founded the "Manufactured Doubt" industry.

The Manufactured Doubt industry grows up
As the success of Hill and Knowlton's brilliant Manufactured Doubt campaign became apparent, other industries manufacturing dangerous products hired the firm to design similar PR campaigns. In 1967, Hill and Knowlton helped asbestos industry giant Johns-Manville set up the Asbestos Information Association (AIA). The official-sounding AIA produced "sound science" that questioned the link between asbestos and lung diseases (asbestos currently kills 90,000 people per year, according to the World Health Organization). Manufacturers of lead, vinyl chloride, beryllium, and dioxin products also hired Hill and Knowlton to devise product defense strategies to combat the numerous scientific studies showing that their products were harmful to human health.

By the 1980s, the Manufactured Doubt industry gradually began to be dominated by more specialized "product defense" firms and free enterprise "think tanks". Michaels wrote in Doubt is Their Product about the specialized "product defense" firms: "Having cut their teeth manufacturing uncertainty for Big Tobacco, scientists at ChemRisk, the Weinberg Group, Exponent, Inc., and other consulting firms now battle the regulatory agencies on behalf of the manufacturers of benzene, beryllium, chromium, MTBE, perchlorates, phthalates, and virtually every other toxic chemical in the news today....Public health interests are beside the point. This is science for hire, period, and it is extremely lucrative".

Joining the specialized "product defense" firms were the so-called "think tanks". These front groups received funding from manufacturers of dangerous products and produced "sound science" in support of their funders' products, in the name of free enterprise and free markets. Think tanks such as the George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been active for decades in the Manufactured Doubt business, generating misleading science and false controversy to protect the profits of their clients who manufacture dangerous products.

The ozone hole battle
In 1975, the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) industry realized it had a serious problem. The previous year, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina, chemists at the University of California, Irvine, had published a scientific paper warning that human-generated CFCs could cause serious harm to Earth's protective ozone layer. They warned that the loss of ozone would significantly increase the amount of skin-damaging ultraviolet UV-B light reaching the surface, greatly increasing skin cancer and cataracts. The loss of stratospheric ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone loss had been observed yet, CFCs should be banned, they said. The CFC industry hired Hill and Knowlton to fight back. As is essential in any Manufactured Doubt campaign, Hill and Knowlton found a respected scientist to lead the effort--noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution. In 1975, Scorer went on a month-long PR tour, blasting Molina and Rowland, calling them "doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing that has been accumulated so far is a number of theories." To complement Scorer's efforts, Hill and Knowlton unleashed their standard package of tricks learned from decades of serving the tobacco industry:

- Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.

- Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.

- Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.

- Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.

- Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.

- Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.

- Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.

- Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.

- Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world.

- Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.

- Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.

The campaign worked, and CFC regulations were delayed many years, as Hill and Knowlton boasted in internal documents. The PR firm also took credit for keeping public opinion against buying CFC aerosols to a minimum, and helping change the editorial positions of many newspapers.

In the end, Hill and Knowlton's PR campaign casting doubt on the science of ozone depletion by CFCs turned out to have no merit. Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential environmental disaster.

The battle over global warming
In 1988, the fossil fuel industry realized it had a serious problem. The summer of 1988 had shattered century-old records for heat and drought in the U.S., and NASA's Dr. James Hansen, one of the foremost climate scientists in the world, testified before Congress that human-caused global warming was partially to blame. A swelling number of scientific studies were warning of the threat posed by human-cause climate change, and that consumption of fossil fuels needed to slow down. Naturally, the fossil fuel industry fought back. They launched a massive PR campaign that continues to this day, led by the same think tanks that worked to discredit the ozone depletion theory. The George C. Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been key players in both fights, and there are numerous other think tanks involved. Many of the same experts who had worked hard to discredit the science of the well-established link between cigarette smoke and cancer, the danger the CFCs posed to the ozone layer, and the dangers to health posed by a whole host of toxic chemicals, were now hard at work to discredit the peer-reviewed science supporting human-caused climate change.

As is the case with any Manufactured Doubt campaign, a respected scientist was needed to lead the battle. One such scientist was Dr. Frederick Seitz, a physicist who in the 1960s chaired the organization many feel to be the most prestigious science organization in the world--the National Academy of Sciences. Seitz took a position as a paid consultant for R.J. Reynolds tobacco company beginning in 1978, so was well-versed in the art of Manufactured Doubt. According to the excellent new book, Climate Cover-up, written by desmogblog.com co-founder James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore, over a 10-year period Seitz was responsible for handing out $45 million in tobacco company money to researchers who overwhelmingly failed to link tobacco to anything the least bit negative. Seitz received over $900,000 in compensation for his efforts. He later became a founder of the George C. Marshall Institute, and used his old National Academy of Sciences affiliation to lend credibility to his attacks on global warming science until his death in 2008 at the age of ninety-six. It was Seitz who launched the "Oregon Petition", which contains the signatures of more than 34,000 scientists saying global warming is probably natural and not a crisis. The petition is a regular feature of the Manufactured Doubt campaign against human-caused global warming. The petition lists the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" as its parent organization. According to Climate Cover-up, the Institute is a farm shed situated a couple of miles outside of Cave Junction, OR (population 17,000). The Institute lists seven faculty members, two of whom are dead, and has no ongoing research and no students. It publishes creationist-friendly homeschooler curriculums books on surviving nuclear war. The petition was sent to scientists and was accompanied by a 12-page review printed in exactly the same style used for the prestigious journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A letter from Seitz, who is prominently identified as a former National Academy of Sciences president, accompanied the petition and review. Naturally, many recipients took this to be an official National Academy of Sciences communication, and signed the petition as a result. The National Academy issued a statement in April 2008, clarifying that it had not issued the petition, and that its position on global warming was the opposite. The petition contains no contact information for the signers, making it impossible to verify. In its August 2006 issue, Scientific American presented its attempt to verify the petition. They found that the scientists were almost all people with undergraduate degrees, with no record of research and no expertise in climatology. Scientific American contacted a random sample of 26 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to have a Ph.D. in a climate related science. Eleven said they agreed with the petition, six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember the petition, one had died, and five did not respond.

I could say much more about the Manufactured Doubt campaign being waged against the science of climate change and global warming, but it would fill an entire book. In fact, it has, and I recommend reading Climate Cover-up to learn more. The main author, James Hoggan, owns a Canadian public relations firm, and is intimately familiar with how public relations campaigns work. Suffice to say, the Manufactured Doubt campaign against global warming--funded by the richest corporations in world history--is probably the most extensive and expensive such effort ever. We don't really know how much money the fossil fuel industry has pumped into its Manufactured Doubt campaign, since they don't have to tell us. The website exxonsecrets.org estimates that ExxonMobil alone spent $20 million between 1998 - 2007 on the effort. An analysis done by Desmogblog's Kevin Grandia done in January 2009 found that skeptical global warming content on the web had doubled over the past year. Someone is paying for all that content.

Lobbyists, not skeptical scientists
The history of the Manufactured Doubt industry provides clear lessons in evaluating the validity of their attacks on the published peer-reviewed climate change science. One should trust that the think tanks and allied "skeptic" bloggers such as Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That will give information designed to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry. Yes, there are respected scientists with impressive credentials that these think tanks use to voice their views, but these scientists have given up their objectivity and are now working as lobbyists. I don't like to call them skeptics, because all good scientists should be skeptics. Rather, the think tanks scientists are contrarians, bent on discrediting an accepted body of published scientific research for the benefit of the richest and most powerful corporations in history. Virtually none of the "sound science" they are pushing would ever get published in a serious peer-reviewed scientific journal, and indeed the contrarians are not scientific researchers. They are lobbyists. Many of them seem to believe their tactics are justified, since they are fighting a righteous war against eco-freaks determined to trash the economy.

I will give a small amount of credit to some of their work, however. I have at times picked up some useful information from the contrarians, and have used it to temper my blogs to make them more balanced. For example, I no longer rely just on the National Climatic Data Center for my monthly climate summaries, but instead look at data from NASA and the UK HADCRU source as well. When the Hurricane Season of 2005 brought unfounded claims that global warming was to blame for Hurricane Katrina, and a rather flawed paper by researchers at Georgia Tech showing a large increase in global Category 4 and 5 hurricanes, I found myself agreeing with the contrarians' analysis of the matter, and my blogs at the time reflected this.

The contrarians and the hacked CRU emails
A hacker broke into an email server at the Climate Research Unit of the UK's University of East Anglia last week and posted ten years worth of private email exchanges between leading scientists who've published research linking humans to climate change. Naturally, the contrarians have seized upon this golden opportunity, and are working hard to discredit several of these scientists. You'll hear claims by some contrarians that the emails discovered invalidate the whole theory of human-caused global warming. Well, all I can say is, consider the source. We can trust the contrarians to say whatever is in the best interests of the fossil fuel industry. What I see when I read the various stolen emails and explanations posted at Realclimate.org is scientists acting as scientists--pursuing the truth. I can see no clear evidence that calls into question the scientific validity of the research done by the scientists victimized by the stolen emails. There is no sign of a conspiracy to alter data to fit a pre-conceived ideological view. Rather, I see dedicated scientists attempting to make the truth known in face of what is probably the world's most pervasive and best-funded disinformation campaign against science in history. Even if every bit of mud slung at these scientists were true, the body of scientific work supporting the theory of human-caused climate change--which spans hundreds of thousands of scientific papers written by tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of different scientific disciplines--is too vast to be budged by the flaws in the works of the three or four scientists being subject to the fiercest attacks.

Exaggerated claims by environmentalists
Climate change contrarians regularly complain about false and misleading claims made by ideologically-driven environmental groups regarding climate change, and the heavy lobbying these groups do to influence public opinion. Such efforts confuse the real science and make climate change seem more dangerous than it really is, the contrarians argue. To some extent, these concerns are valid. In particular, environmentalists are too quick to blame any perceived increase in hurricane activity on climate change, when such a link has yet to be proven. While Al Gore's movie mostly had good science, I thought he botched the treatment of hurricanes as well, and the movie looked too much like a campaign ad. In general, environmental groups present better science than the think tanks do, but you're still better off getting your climate information directly from the scientists doing the research, via the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Another good source is Bob Henson's Rough Guide to Climate Change, aimed at people with high-school level science backgrounds.

Let's look at the amount of money being spent on lobbying efforts by the fossil fuel industry compared to environmental groups to see their relative influence. According to Center for Public Integrity, there are currently 2,663 climate change lobbyists working on Capitol Hill. That's five lobbyists for every member of Congress. Climate lobbyists working for major industries outnumber those working for environmental, health, and alternative energy groups by more than seven to one. For the second quarter of 2009, here is a list compiled by the Center for Public Integrity of all the oil, gas, and coal mining groups that spent more than $100,000 on lobbying (this includes all lobbying, not just climate change lobbying):

Chevron $6,485,000
Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
BP America $4,270,000
ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
Shell Oil Company $950,000
Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
Williams Companies $920,000
Flint Hills Resources $820,000
Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
National Mining Association $770,000
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
Devon Energy $695,000
Sunoco $585,000
Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
Peabody Energy $420,000
Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
America's Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
El Paso Corporation $261,000
Spectra Energy $279,000
National Propane Gas Association $242,000
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
Nexen, Inc $230,000
Denbury Resources $200,000
Nisource, Inc $180,000
Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
Tesoro Companies $119,000

Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:

Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500
Nature Conservancy $650,000
Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000
National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000
Sierra Club $120,000
Defenders of Wildlife $120,000
Environmental Defense Fund $100,000

If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects both sets of numbers. The numbers don't even include lobbying money from other industries lobbying against climate change, such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.

Corporate profits vs. corporate social responsibility
I'm sure I've left the impression that I disapprove of what the Manufactured Doubt industry is doing. On the contrary, I believe that for the most part, the corporations involved have little choice under the law but to protect their profits by pursuing Manufactured Doubt campaigns, as long as they are legal. The law in all 50 U.S. states has a provision similar to Maine's section 716, "The directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interest of the corporation and of the shareholders". There is no clause at the end that adds, "...but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public safety, the communities in which the corporation operates, or the dignity of employees". The law makes a company's board of directors legally liable for "breach of fiduciary responsibility" if they knowingly manage a company in a way that reduces profits. Shareholders can and have sued companies for being overly socially responsible, and not paying enough attention to the bottom line. We can reward corporations that are managed in a socially responsible way with our business and give them incentives to act thusly, but there are limits to how far Corporate Socially Responsibility (CSR) can go. For example, car manufacturer Henry Ford was successfully sued by stockholders in 1919 for raising the minimum wage of his workers to $5 per day. The courts declared that, while Ford's humanitarian sentiments about his employees were nice, his business existed to make profits for its stockholders.

So, what is needed is a fundamental change to the laws regarding the purpose of a corporation, or new regulations forcing corporations to limit Manufactured Doubt campaigns. Legislation has been introduced in Minnesota to create a new section of law for an alternative kind of corporation, the SR (Socially Responsible) corporation, but it would be a long uphill battle to get such legislation passed in all 50 states. Increased regulation limiting Manufactured Doubt campaigns is possible to do for drugs and hazardous chemicals--Doubt is Their Product has some excellent suggestions on that, with the first principle being, "use the best science available; do not demand certainty where it does not and cannot exist". However, I think such legislation would be difficult to implement for environmental crises such as global warming. In the end, we're stuck with the current system, forced to make critical decisions affecting all of humanity in the face of the Frankenstein monster our corporate system of law has created--the most vigorous and well-funded disinformation campaign against science ever conducted.

Have a great Thanksgiving, everyone, and I'll be back Monday--the last day of hurricane season--with a review of the hurricane season of 2009.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 1000 - 950

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37Blog Index

The New Straw Man

The carbon industry wants the debate about Global Warming / Climate Change to continue - indefinitely.

As long as the Climate Change debate continues, the subject that cannot be argued against; Pollution, almost seems to have disappeared from public perception. Strangely enough, Climate change science has become the new straw-man to avoid the issue of Pollution.

What they are not talking about:
Smog, pollution, chemicals in our air, water and food have seemingly been forgotten by major media.

The leading causes of death in the U.S. in 2002 were Cardiopulmonary disease and cancers of the trachea, and lungs. But smoking has been on a decline for about 20 years.

L.A., it's not your second hand smoke that is killing you, it's your air pollution. One car, in an average day of driving in Los Angeles, emits the same amount of pollutants as thousands of packs of cigarettes.

These days arguing about climate change is like arguing whether or not the earth travels around the sun. People can debate anything for as long as they wish to keep the debate going. Meanwhile, people are dying every single day from air and other pollutants. It's past time to bring the immediate devastation back into the public conversation.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

A look back at Mondays Cuba-US Hurricane Conference in NOLA
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129902
Good Afternoon to all.

Blog Update

Christmas Gift Ideas
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:


They Publish CONSTANTLY and even leak info before they publish. There is so much "AGW" stuff int the technical journals it isnt funny.

This is at the high end of course so it isnt usually available free online but at any university library you can access it.

There are too many columnists in very liberal newspapers who gleefully admit that the scientists are refusing to release the raw data. The scientists freely hide behind claims of 'proprietary information', and when the discussion affects billions of people, there should be no such thing as proprietary information.

The challenge remains...

If what you say is true...

then post some links as proof of what you say.

And don't forget the conditions are that the information be freely described as being 'RAW' as opposed to 'processed' because 'processed' data can be suspected of being altered for ulterior reasons.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The scientist world wide,..Have committed a Hoax on empirical evidence and is schooling everyone?
Gimme a break.

Its like the 1500's, Hackers and denial folks are the Church,..and the scientist are Galileo..well..we know how that all turned out.


The Planet is warming at a rate that is not Natural,..and were the root cause in the Finite Eco-system we live in.

Not many Bears nor Eagles drilling holes for oil and Driving & FLying 24/7/365 around the Globe.

But those Beavers sure are good engineers!!!


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129902
Nida is just parked, not moving at all.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
EEK, and I was having such a nice day -- "Below Average" Filter does not work when posts are quoted.
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
Ummm,er..Im sure Senator Inhofe will clear all this up for everyone,..he's a part of the "Family"..

That should reassure everyone in the end.


Ack,spit..coff...LOL
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129902
Quoting presslord:
"...the AGW crowd..." is not a derisive name?!?!?!?!?!

Perhaps you have another alternative with which to refer to them by?

What word would you use with 'AGW'?

Supporters?

Crowd?

Personally, I wanted to use the word 'gang'; but, I thought that would suggest they were part of some terrible gang here in this country and they, the AGW crowd are certainly not anywhere like those evil people.

Remember that when we are discussing something using a keyboard, it is very important to continually reinforce who the 'they' and 'them' are. Otherwise, people become confused and misread a particular post.

I await your reply and gladly encourage your suggestions.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting weatherbro:
models a forecasting not only the coldest air of the season but potential monthly records come late next week into the first weekend of December for the eastern 2/3.

Get ready cause here it comes!!!

"Get Ready (1992, w/"My Girl"
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
"...the AGW crowd..." is not a derisive name?!?!?!?!?!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
The Deniers are trying to turn the GW debate into a personal discussion

They are not consistent and are greasing for straws. "well what about..... " -- its come down to them having to propose a Grand Conspiracy because they cant refute the science.

How can a person refute the science when the underlying data is not available for them to see.

The reason they can't refute the science is because they are being prevented from having access to the raw data.

The AGW crowd readily admits that they aren't going to release the raw data and somehow you seem to think it is okay.

What have they got to hide?

If the information is accurate, they should be more than happy to give the general public ALL of the information available. Heck they, the AGW crowd should be forcing it on them and challenge them to prove them, the AGW crowd, wrong.

Why isn't that happening...because they know the truth will destroy their position.

I challenge you to demand free unfettered access to the data as proof that you seriously mean what you say about the science being correct and unbiased.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

USGS Glacier Monitoring Studies


Monitoring and Assessing Glacier Changes and Their Associated Hydrologic and Ecologic Effects in Glacier National Park


Purpose:

To systematically monitor changes in Glacier National Park’s namesake glaciers and to determine the causes of changes, assess their ecological and hydrological effects, and predict future changes and effects.
GPS data collection, Sperry Glacier, 2005, USGS Photo

Glacier National Park’s namesake glaciers have receded rapidly since the Park’s establishment in 1910, primarily due to long-term changes in regional and global climate. These changes include warming, particularly of daily minimum temperatures, and persistent droughts. This warming is ongoing and the loss of the Park’s glaciers continues, with the park’s glaciers predicted to disappear by 2030.

In the past decade, Glacier NP has experienced dramatic climate variability that includes record winter and summer droughts, near record summertime temperatures, as well as near-record winter snowfall. While the park’s glaciers continue to shrink, it is not clear whether these dramatic fluctuations have accelerated or slowed glacier recession and downwasting. In part this is because studies of glaciers in Glacier NP to date have focused on changes in the area of individual glaciers and the extent of glaciers in the park. Few measurements of glacier volume or mass have been made. Measurements of area alone can be misleading; changes in mass and/or ice flux can result in significant changes to the glacier and to streamflow below the glacier even when glacier area remains stable. Though hydrologic changes such as these can have important ecologic effects downstream of the glaciers, the nature and extent of changes in runoff volume, and stream temperature have not been measured or analyzed.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129902
Ahhh,,the proverbial Double Quote on a Saturday.

We recycle Humans on a Daily Basis..organ Harvesting,..Cornea transplants...etc.

..we all return to the Earth,,and we are all made of Stars..
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129902
Well, it looks like the AGW crowd have finally begun to feel threatened that their position is one big fallacy and...

notice how, in the last twenty posts or so, the name calling has begun once again.

They are NOT 'denialists' !!!

They simply disagree with you.!!!

Stop calling people names!!!

It is unbecoming of intelligent folks like you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ricderr:
If we treated each other as good as we do garbage,..the world would be a much nicer place.
.
you mean...toss you in a can under the sink...or just compost each other? :-)

"Soylent Green" or "Fargo"?
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
If we treated each other as good as we do garbage,..the world would be a much nicer place.
.
you mean...toss you in a can under the sink...or just compost each other? :-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
composting- return to the Earth, what belongs to the Earth.


since i've been in houston...AHM and the kids have started recycling and composting...what was two to three cans twice a week is now one can once a week......it's shocking
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If we treated each other as good as we do our garbage,..the world would be a much nicer place.


Eggplant Parmesan anyone?




Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129902
models a forecasting not only the coldest air of the season but potential monthly records come late next week into the first weekend of December for the eastern 2/3.

Get ready cause here it comes!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
composting- return to the Earth, what belongs to the Earth.

Instead of filling a kitchen garbage bag every two days, now it takes about a week. You'd be amazed at what is compostable, and how much better your garden will grow, vs petro-based fertilizers.

I have proved this to myself this year- no bad science involved.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
974. Skyepony (Mod)
Ike~ I have a somewhat concealed area behind bushes with a 6 foot round of no climb wire to dump leaves in to compost. Mow them a few times , if that is what you do.. leave what you can to feed the grass, use 1/2 the fertilizer or less. I'm over the national campaign for a perfect lawn that requires an open wallet & more oil.. When the lawn mower finally died we just fenced the rest in..my lawn mowers..the greenest available (well short of a miniature dairy cow).
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 226 Comments: 39429
OHHH, GC is GOLF Course. :)
I thought is was Coast Guard, accidentally transposed...and was momentarily concerned.
(Good night, Gracie...)

You know what's cool? Log out of WU, log back in with filter set on "Below Average." Still see humorous comments, but filters out a couple/few...just about perfectly, IMO.

drifting, listening to 80's metal, still hatin' on guys with better hair than me...my husband tells me it's Aqua Net, why didn't I know that? And how did hubby? Sincerely hope it's because of his three older sisters.
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
My father was with NASA and encouraged my interest in science and the environment.
So from 1997 on I studied and I did weekly news searches on the global warming phenomenon. Just about every single news article that was released on the subject had these same skeptics denying human involvement- Fred Singer and Patrick Michaels being most predominant.

Same people- over and over.

So I started researching the consistent deniers only to discover that they were under the pay of either Western Fuels Association or the American Petroleum Institute or Exxon, etc..as well as being under hire of think tanks that were headed by carbon industry execs.

I also discovered that the repetitive deniers had pretty much been blackballed by the greater scientific body for having produced a great deal of bad science - science that had been thoroughly discredited. It was like a crap science merry-go-round with these guys. But they kept getting quoted in newspapers and internet news across the nation and across the world.

The utterly ludicrous thing was this. A guy like Fred Singer would say in one news article that Global Warming was a fallacy. In another he would say Yes it exists but is natural. In another he would say It's clearly from cow belches. All within the space of a few of weeks.

I got into the habit of writing to the news reporters who were publishing the articles to let them know they were being hoaxed. Don't know if it did much good though.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting melwerle:
Morning Orca...and that's exactly where hubby is this morning...golfing at Admiral Baker. He couldn't care less if it's raining. We have 80% chance of tstorms though.


Golf is golf... rain is only wet :)
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26516
970. Skyepony (Mod)
Quoting barryweather:
Hey guys. Good morning! One last point before the blog changes. Someone here mentioned composting as a releaser of CO2 and therefore to be avoided. I advocate the use of compost to cut down on landfill and surface water contamination. The CO2 release is offset when the compost is used to enrich the soil to grow new plants. Just had to clear that up.

Have great day!


Great post...Composting has also been attacked by manufactured doubt. These corporations want us to buy everything & make nothing for ourselves. We don't need to fertilize with petroleum derived man made fertilizers & that is certainly not the best for the planet, the garden or our wallet.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 226 Comments: 39429
Morning Orca...and that's exactly where hubby is this morning...golfing at Admiral Baker. He couldn't care less if it's raining. We have 80% chance of tstorms though.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting melwerle:
Oh my...woke up at 2 in the morning and it was POURING. Continued throughout 8am...WOW. San Diego & rain? What's up with THAT


ROFLMAO...I was there when the Admiral Baker GC basically disappeared in a rain storm river.
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26516
967. Skyepony (Mod)
Spathy~ We will never go green if the govt keep giving billions of our tax dollars to oil companies. I don't think we should give all that money to the green movement, a percent for a short while would make for a smoother transition but unlike unsustainable oil which needs fought over, shipped, cleaned up after & discovered continually, it wouldn't need subsidies forever. I really could careless if they just pulled subsidies & didn't give subsidies to green, I'm 3 steps ahead & fair well in an energy crunch, renewable would easily come out cheaper in a free market, you pay for it once, you buy the right to make your own energy...I hate the cap & trade idea. Hansen of all people had a good idea but it benefits the people & not energy corporations & isn't being considered.

kat~ Composing, the end product is the best fertilizer you can use to grow plants, with the other benefit that you don't need fertilizer made from more CO2 producing methods from oil. Composted fertilizer also strengthens plants to where they become much better resistant to bugs & other plant diseases, something store bought fertilizer can't do.
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 226 Comments: 39429
The warming debate isnt the issue, Its a reality that some will damn cuz they cant grasp the impacts of civilization on a closed finite Eco-system.

Earth.

The debate is over the root cause,and its obvious what that is.

Some will deny the causation till hell freezes over,..and by the way the Saints are playing..

Id Invest in a good coat.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129902
Oh my...woke up at 2 in the morning and it was POURING. Continued throughout 8am...WOW. San Diego & rain? What's up with THAT
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
From thecompostbin.com

"Is Composting Environmentally Friendly?

Did you know that composting releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? Yes, it's true. So you may be wondering how is this an environmentally friendly thing to do.

Did you also know that when things decompose in the landfill, methane is produced? Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

The difference between the landfill and your home compost bin is air. An aerated compost bin is getting the oxygen it needs to undergo aerobic decomposition. The lack of oxygen in a landfill is causing anaerobic decomposition which as a byproduct produces methane.

That means that by composting your food and garden waste, you're keeping it out of the landfills and decreasing the amount of methane that going into our atmosphere. Not bad for a pile of garbage.

Obviously this is a very general explanation that doesn't take into account a lot of variables but you get the idea. A well tended compost bin is much better for the environment than sending all of your waste to the landfill."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AwakeInMaryland:

...that's why I prefer "Climate Change" to "global warming" or "cooling". Apologies, I know we're all SO tired of the topic...but I've been holding this question for awhile.

Actually, its getting better all the time.

It would appear that Climate Change is now becoming Climate-gate.

At long last, people might be waking up to the fraud of AGW and seeing the intent of AGW as actually being an asset grab by a well hidden aristocracy.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


AOI

AOI

AOI

AOI

Humor in Comments
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26516
From The Washington Times blogs -- pls. note comment at the end

"Out of Context" (Name of blog, perfect irony, lol)
By Carleton Bryant on Oct. 15, 2009

From oysters to chili peppers, everybody has their own ideas about what constitutes an aphrodisiac — food that increases sexual desire.

But 11Points.com has noted foods that might dampen the libido and has assembled a list of "anaphrodisiacs" that could cause a chill in the bedroom, if not the kitchen. For example:

•Corn Flakes. John Harvey Kellogg invented the cereal with the belief that a bland breakfast food would encourage abstinence. And if you're serving Corn Flakes on a date, you should expect to sleep alone.

•Licorice. Eating too much of it can slow desire in men and women. Even if you get it in whips.

•Okra. A vegetable with its own hair can do nothing to encourage the libido — or the appetite.

•Soy and cilantro. Monks ingest these to stave off sexual desire. So that soy-and-cilantro okra risotto is just a big buzz kill.

There are 1 Comments

jack98683
My considerable research indicates that the number one "anaphrodisiac" food is wedding cake.
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
Quoting Ossqss:
Howdy, I know this may be off subject, but it was discussed many moons ago and relates to hurricane kits and preparedness. Portable digital, battery operated TV's have come down in price. Here is one example. L8R

Portable, digital (ATSC tuner) TV

Oh, dang, paid the full price for a Haier just a few months ago. And it's smaller. Thanks for keeping an eye out!
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
Howdy, I know this may be off subject, but it was discussed many moons ago and relates to hurricane kits and preparedness. Portable digital, battery operated TV's have come down in price. Here is one example. L8R

Portable, digital (ATSC tuner) TV
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:


Sydney is going to have its hottest November in 150 years. global warming???

I have a "serious" question (oh please stop LOL'ing) -- re the very hot Australian Nov. 150 yrs. ago -- was that time period still during what is called "The Little Ice Age"?
I looked it up and seems like it started in the 17th C., but I saw some dates in the 1800s -- what, Wiki isn't the greatest source ever?

Anyway, that's why I prefer "Climate Change" to "global warming" or "cooling". Apologies, I know we're all SO tired of the topic...but I've been holding this question for awhile.
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
Hey guys. Good morning! One last point before the blog changes. Someone here mentioned composting as a releaser of CO2 and therefore to be avoided. I advocate the use of compost to cut down on landfill and surface water contamination. The CO2 release is offset when the compost is used to enrich the soil to grow new plants. Just had to clear that up.

Have great day!
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:


naw mate el nino


Hasn't really kicked in down here yet
Member Since: September 30, 2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15978
I'm all tingly 'bout Mon nite. Saints and Pats. Can't wait!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Chucktown:
Lock of the day - North Carolina -6 over NC State



I'm gonna bet it all! House, car everything!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Lock of the day - North Carolina -6 over NC State
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PensacolaDoug:


Was it AGW 150 years ago?


Good point !!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AussieStorm:


Sydney is going to have its hottest November in 150 years. global warming???


Was it AGW 150 years ago?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 1000 - 950

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Overcast
37 °F
Overcast

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Lake Effort Snow Shower Over Windsor, Ontario
Sunset on Dunham Lake
Pictured Rocks Sunset
Sunset on Lake Huron