The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy

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

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.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

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: 150 - 100

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

I don't want to, I might get banned for it, it's a Christian thing,

Oh puhlease....he's talkng about the NWO, Pat....the New World Order....

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Things that have increased

1. Human / Industrial Population - Expels CO2
2. Concrete covered land - Limits CO2 consumption
3. Deforestation - Limits CO2 consumption

The increased demand on the Ocean to remove CO2 is clearly evident and proof that the natural balance is out of whack, IMO.

You can't increase the CO2 emissions while reducing natural cleansing attributes and expect there not to be problems.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Okay got to to bounce, kids...meds are making me rather drowsy...back after a nap...

Play nice, huh? Remember, we're all friends here...well, some not so much as others LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Al Gore was and is integral in pushing the NOAA Radio Alert Networks and radios since the 90's,,and did many a PSA on that one issue.
Way before AGW was a word.


Other VP's are good at shooting lawyers in the Head.

So I put my Faith in do'ers.
Not Bloviating idiocy from the er,right.


You da man Pat! I love it! LOL!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:


Elaborate on "for Now "sport?


As a Veteran I'd Like to Know what you fear?




I don't want to, I might get banned for it, it's a Christian thing, with the way the government is going.. Just gonna leave it at that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Gore scares some seems to me.

Gore is one Man,..not a ideology.

The warming debate isnt the issue, Its a reality that some will damn cuz the 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.





Well put, sir...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
Jerry!!!!!

:)


Hey, darlin! How are you doing? Did the epi evefr work? Even a little?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
I Guess Andrew in 92 was a Sign of the Times,as well as Nargis in 2008 in Myanmar..or does the Spirit not count those,...


Yes, but it's a belief that us Christians hold on, I said natural disasters like Katrina, not just Katrina. We are entitles to our own beliefs, it is a free country... for now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
I Guess Andrew in 92 was a Sign of the Times,as well as Nargis in 2008 in Myanmar..or does the Spirit not count those,...

Nida is one hell of a warning shot from the almighty....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I Guess Andrew in 92 was a Sign of the Times,as well as Nargis in 2008 in Myanmar..or does the Spirit not count those,...

Or the 240,000 dead from the 2004 December Tsunami..?

Or the Galveston 1900..cane.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 439 Comments: 137192
Jerry!!!!!

:)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Post 114.
I agree with some of your points, but to bash Dr. Masters was uncalled for. I am a born again, spirit filled Christian. I believe Global Warming is a complete hoax, and that people are making it real just for the money. Not shoving down the bible in your throat bud, but things happen for a reason. We Christians believe that the natural disasters like Katrina (2005) and others are signs of the times. However, that is another debate that could be settled later on in life. Just don't bash/stand up Dr. Masters like that, your on your way for a ban, that was completely wrong!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hurricanejunky:


Yes, I'm sure you're much smarter than Al Gore.
Are you a climatologist as well? You seem to be an expert at everything. I just wanted to nail down what exactly your forte' is since you seem to be light years ahead of everyone else on this issue.

Don't be mad at me. On science, well, I have to say, well, Gore probably knows a lot more about politics than I do.

My creds? Well. Let us just say that have a BS in Atmo. science, with a lot of coursework in Atmo Chem and numerical modeling. And I had a DOE-sponsored internship in the Global Change Education Program in support of a NASA field campaign. And a job in Virginia where we used satellite measurements of IR at precise channels to infer concentrations of specific gasses (like the SO2 maps that were on here yesterday). That'll do for starters...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Al Gore was and is integral in pushing the NOAA Radio Alert Networks and radios since the 90's,,and did many a PSA on that one issue.
Way before AGW was a word.


Other VP's are good at shooting lawyers in the Head.

So I put my Faith in do'ers.
Not Bloviating idiocy from the er,right.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 439 Comments: 137192
Hide the Decline!!!





Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I Vew the Former VP,Congressman,US veteran as a Voice for whats right.

Along with Dr. Jeff Masters.

They are proven do'ers.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 439 Comments: 137192
Quoting RJY:

Mainly because they want governments to fund them to line thier pockets.

What has happened in the last couple of days is extremely damaging to the efforts to prove man made global warming. We now have proof of cooked and or omitted data.

Not to mention, Anthony Watt (www.wattsupwiththat.com) has shown the evidence of poorly located and maintained offical temperature recording stations (www.surfacestations.org).

Despite the fact that there was a direct link between tobacco smoke and lung cancer and the efforts to bury it... There is no proven data link between man made emissions and global warming.

It's the Sun stupid. Always has been, Always will be.


I love how all the contrarians are crawling out of the woodwork now with the stolen emails that involved a handful of scientists and now act like the majority of the scientific community has been exposed as a phony. Talk about extremism. It's the sun, stupid. I think you've been in it too long...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Wow, reading the doc's blog makes it seem as thogh there's an echo in here...

Up at the PC for a few and then off to take a medication induced nap...I'm doing pretty good, moving better everyday and hoping, by the weekend, that I'm doing about as well as I was before the surgery (which isn't saying much, but it's something!).

I'll try to be back in later for a more extended stay so we can discuss the blog topic of the day...LOL

Thanks, everyone, for all the email and such; you are members of the best online community out there; don't forget it!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Japan Meteorological Agency
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #29
TYPHOON NIDA (T0922)
3:00 AM JST November 26 2009
===========================================

SUBJECT: Category Five Typhoon Near Marianas Islands

At 18:00 PM UTC, Typhoon Nida (905 hPa) located at 13.6N 141.4E has 10 minute sustained winds of 115 knot with gusts of 165 knots. The typhoon is reported as moving northwest at 12 knots

RSMC Dvorak Intensity: T7.5

Storm Force Winds
===================
70 NM from the center

Gale Force Winds
================
180 NM from the center

Forecast and Intensity
=====================
24 HRS: 16.2N 139.5E - 115 kts (CAT 5/Very Intense Typhoon)
48 HRS: 18.0N 139.0E - 110 kts (CAT 5/Very Intense Typhoon)
72 HRS: 18.7N 138.8E - 95 kts (CAT 4/Very Strong Typhoon)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Gore scares some seems to me.

No, it is the ones that have 'swallowed the hook' that scare me.

Gore is just a bored politician playing science spokesperson...he really does get basic science all mucked up and he does it often.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Gore scares some seems to me.

Gore is one Man,..not a ideology.

The warming debate isnt the issue, Its a reality that some will damn cuz the 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.





Nice post Pat!
Go Saints! Whoop those Patsies!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:

Wrong answer. I don't do politics.

Gore should stay far away from any and all science discussion...as evidenced by, well, just about any time he has opened his mouth.


Yes, I'm sure you're much smarter than Al Gore.
Are you a climatologist as well? You seem to be an expert at everything. I just wanted to nail down what exactly your forte' is since you seem to be light years ahead of everyone else on this issue.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Gore scares some seems to me.

Gore is one Man,..not a ideology.

The warming debate isnt the issue, Its a reality that some will damn cuz the 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: 439 Comments: 137192
124. RJY
Quoting hurricanejunky:


Why does somebody have to have an "agenda" because they want to make the planet a better place to live and preserve what God bestowed upon us? If the agenda is to stop deforestation, ocean acidification, sea level rise, and death of innocent wildlife and ecosystems due to inconsiderate, gluttonous corporations and consumers than I guess I have one.

Mainly because they want governments to fund them to line thier pockets.

What has happened in the last couple of days is extremely damaging to the efforts to prove man made global warming. We now have proof of cooked and or omitted data.

Not to mention, Anthony Watt (www.wattsupwiththat.com) has shown the evidence of poorly located and maintained offical temperature recording stations (www.surfacestations.org).

Despite the fact that there was a direct link between tobacco smoke and lung cancer and the efforts to bury it... There is no proven data link between man made emissions and global warming.

It's the Sun stupid. Always has been, Always will be.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MrRight:
Jeff,
I’m stunned that a man with a PHD can so easily be fooled. You have lost the ability to think critically. In the 1970’s we were told that DDT was killing wildlife and was a threat to mankind. Thanks to one woman’s hysteria, millions of children have died from malaria.
In your blog, you assume that most people are too ignorant to know the difference between good and bad science. You don’t seem to think we can think.
You still talk about the Ozone hole as a threat to humanity and rejoice that the WHO helped outlaw CFC’s. When in truth the ozone hole was not (not real hole but just a thinning of the ozone layer) even heard of until the late 60’s and early 70’s. Since ozone is created by ultraviolet light stinking oxygen molecules it only makes sense that the layer of ozone would be thinner at the South Pole in the spring when the South Pole is just coming out of darkness. Yet in everything, I’ve ever read on the ozone hole, no one ever mentions anything about the darkness (lack of sunlight), ice crystals, or any natural causes. It is always man’s fault.
The same argument applies to global warming. It is always man’s fault; it has nothing to with natural causes like sunlight. Instead, we have invented marketing terms like “Carbon Footprint.”
You know better than most that we do not have reliable weather data before the 1980’s and even now, more than half of all reporting stations in the U.S. are suspect at best. Therefore, to rush in to an international agreement that will cost Americans more in tax dollars and freedoms is nothing short of foolishness.
If you believe global warming is real and caused by man alone then do the following:
Sell your house, shed your clothing, free your pets, move into the woods and then don’t breathe.
Mark Andrews



Wow. First off DDT was killing wildlife, especially birds. Now that is is banned many once endangered species have made a comeback, such as the Brown Pelican and eagles.

Ozone depletion was most definitely linked to using CFCs. The ozone level might have changes on a yearly basis according to the tilt of the Earth, but as a whole, the layer was MUCH thinner than before. Since CFCs have been banned, the damage caused was almost completely reversed.

These are both cases where tipping points were not reached, and nature was able to heal itself, but that is only because people made the connection between man and the environment, and acted to reverse the damage.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hurricanejunky:


What are you talking about? Do you not actually listen to what he has to say instead of tuning him out because of your politics? Obviously not.

Wrong answer. I don't do politics.

Gore should stay far away from any and all science discussion...as evidenced by, well, just about any time he has opened his mouth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting hurricanejunky:


Amen Gordy. I like the one guy on here saying we don't have any proof if this is historically significant? Huh? We have identified C02 and temperature correlations dating back to 20 million years now. With that data we are able to see historical trends. Oh wait, that person likely subscribes to the intelligent design theory and the earth has only been here for 5,000 years. Those scientists are delusional and they only THINK they're seeing data going back 20 million years. They need to lay off the LSD...WOW!

And what does that data show us? That temp changes come before CO2 changes by about 800 years.

So, got any real good data on the temp for 800 years before today? No, no one does. Not saying that all CO2 has a natural source, just that there is a possible natural source, too. And, we have not been able to actually account for the CO2 changes in the tiny amount of time we have been measuring the concentration. The known sources and sink simply do not add up.

Making absurd generalizations about an entire group of people is rather uncouth. You will be embarrassed by doing this one day. Just trying to help you out, here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
All science aside (required for this one), I cannot fathom describing that guy as very intelligent, much less competent, without having some very effective blinders on.


What are you talking about? Do you not actually listen to what he has to say instead of tuning him out because of your politics? Obviously not.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This Climate Change discussion reminds me of something I once read,
"Your Third Eye is open, but you have blinders on."
(If anyone doesn't know by now, of if anyone even cares, I personally believe there is global Climate Change but strongly object to the use of the term Global Warming...but I'm keeping my mind open and have asked Dr. Masters why he often uses the words "Global Warming," and I'm totally willng to listen. Language -- WORDS -- are important!)

I've posted more than my share today...time for the remainder of All My Kids and then Turkey Day shopping. Take care, all!
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
Quoting basscat71:
concerning the hacked emails...i will admit i am not a believer in man-made global warming. while i have respect for dr masters opinions, i think it is fair to say both sides of the issue have their own agenda. i also feel it is unfair for those who do not believe in man-made warming to be cast down because they do not side with the global warming side. again, we are only looking at a speck of the earth's overall time this has been happening. a scientist is supposed to be objective and present all data collected whether it helps or hurts your beliefs.


Why does somebody have to have an "agenda" because they want to make the planet a better place to live and preserve what God bestowed upon us? If the agenda is to stop deforestation, ocean acidification, sea level rise, and death of innocent wildlife and ecosystems due to inconsiderate, gluttonous corporations and consumers than I guess I have one.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Good News from Climategate -- yes there is some.

Upon completion of the years of litigation that are bound to follow, upon re-analysis of available untainted data, upon qualification of the scientists involed to have no conflict of interest, upon developement of a unbiased peer review process, we will ultimately arrive at a better, less controversial, concensus of scientific opinion. Then we will have the closest thing to truth/fact that we can garner on climate to date as humans. It is unfortunate how things are unfolding, but they are what they are.

The new Satellite (tool) that was activated last week, will provide data that we have lacked forever. The oceans are 2/3's of this planet, and we now have an opportunity with this new technology, to better understand that of which has been missing, to any great degree, in the equation.

IMHO, I just want the truth without question or controversy. It has become obvious, we are not there yet.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The power of suggestion. Be back in a few minutes.

hahahaha!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting gordydunnot:
I have read it all now the beauty of science is opinion, couldn't possibly be any father from the truth. I seriously don't understand why the doctor even tries. I guess he has got a thing for education which makes since being a doctor. Can led a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. If you have ever taken even the most basic science class you would know its the careful recording of observations and the explanation of those observations so they can be duplicated by others with out using mystical powers.Here is a opinion, the doc post gw material to see if he can top his personal best on the number of people banned in one day. Anyone know


Amen Gordy. I like the one guy on here saying we don't have any proof if this is historically significant? Huh? We have identified C02 and temperature correlations dating back to 20 million years now. With that data we are able to see historical trends. Oh wait, that person likely subscribes to the intelligent design theory and the earth has only been here for 5,000 years. Those scientists are delusional and they only THINK they're seeing data going back 20 million years. They need to lay off the LSD...WOW!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Jeff,
I’m stunned that a man with a PHD can so easily be fooled. You have lost the ability to think critically. In the 1970’s we were told that DDT was killing wildlife and was a threat to mankind. Thanks to one woman’s hysteria, millions of children have died from malaria.
In your blog, you assume that most people are too ignorant to know the difference between good and bad science. You don’t seem to think we can think.
You still talk about the Ozone hole as a threat to humanity and rejoice that the WHO helped outlaw CFC’s. When in truth the ozone hole was not (not real hole but just a thinning of the ozone layer) even heard of until the late 60’s and early 70’s. Since ozone is created by ultraviolet light stinking oxygen molecules it only makes sense that the layer of ozone would be thinner at the South Pole in the spring when the South Pole is just coming out of darkness. Yet in everything, I’ve ever read on the ozone hole, no one ever mentions anything about the darkness (lack of sunlight), ice crystals, or any natural causes. It is always man’s fault.
The same argument applies to global warming. It is always man’s fault; it has nothing to with natural causes like sunlight. Instead, we have invented marketing terms like “Carbon Footprint.”
You know better than most that we do not have reliable weather data before the 1980’s and even now, more than half of all reporting stations in the U.S. are suspect at best. Therefore, to rush in to an international agreement that will cost Americans more in tax dollars and freedoms is nothing short of foolishness.
If you believe global warming is real and caused by man alone then do the following:
Sell your house, shed your clothing, free your pets, move into the woods and then don’t breathe.
Mark Andrews
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
110. NRAamy 1:22 PM EST on November 25, 2009
I mean, I bought two copies of "Everybody Poops" -- only one for the grandkids...hmmm, where's my copy, anyway...
Awake...you need to get the Captain Underpants books....they are classics!
:)
I have a Capt. Underpants doll sitting on my computer....


The power of suggestion. Be back in a few minutes.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
All science aside (required for this one), I cannot fathom describing that guy as very intelligent, much less competent, without having some very effective blinders on.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
he unleashed the strongest typhoon of the season. Last time I seen such low pressure was from Hong Kong Observatory with a 900 hPa for Jangmi
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I mean, I bought two copies of "Everybody Poops" -- only one for the grandkids...hmmm, where's my copy, anyway...

Awake...you need to get the Captain Underpants books....they are classics!

:)

I have a Capt. Underpants doll sitting on my computer....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SQUAWK:
This whole AGW debate kinda reminds me of Whale Wars on TV. Has anyone watched that show? While I agree with the cause morally, I cannot stand the cast of idiots that run that boat, particularly the captain. What a jerk. If Al Gore was not involved in the AGW debate I might be a little more receptive to the idea and find it more believable, but with him as the front man - no way. I don't pretend to be smart enough to know the reality of AGW, but certainly can't get behind the Gore crew.


Let me see if I get this straight. Although Al Gore is a very intelligent person who has undertaken a great cause, you'd rather see the planet in ruin than work with his "crew" toward a solution? That sounds like putting politics before planet. If Al Gore were the only one present who could save a member of your family from certain death would you just let your family member die? That is a scary mindset.
In the case of global crisis, I think all politics and other hangups should be set aside. The biggest reason we have such gridlock in Washington these days is because there are so many people playing tug of war. Drop the rope, meet in the middle and let's get stuff done! Who cares who is leading the charge as long as they're competent?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Dr. Ivor van Heerden is the deputy director of the LSU Hurricane Center. He takes us on a boat trip across the lake from New Orleans to make clear what went wrong "4" years ago, and to show us how the city can be saved from a repeat disaster.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 439 Comments: 137192
Very strong difluence over the Florida penisula Tuesday night and Wed. I don't think some people really understand just how much of a dangerous situation is setting up during that time frame. A very heavy rain event as well.
Member Since: November 4, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 6577
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.

UH, I don't THINK so. I have not checked the position of every one of these think tanks...but I will bet you, oh, what would anyone be willing to bet...that most of these think tanks generally support the idea of climate change. Give me a few weeks to go through these, though :)

U.S.Dept of State links to think tanks and research institutions=

Add-ons:
Geoff, I gotta get that book, if only for the title!!

Hades -- What Hath Hades Wrought????
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
don't break the scale.. NIDA
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
548
TCNA21 RJTD 251800
CCAA 25180 47644 NIDA(0922) 28136 11414 11344 275// 93213=

STY Nida (0922) System #28
13.6N 141.4E
Dvorak Intensity: T7.5
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AwakeInMaryland:

I don't care what anyone says, Amy, Purple-Hippo-PoopsALot was hilarious and worth the ban.
I mean, I bought two copies of "Everybody Poops" -- only one for the grandkids...hmmm, where's my copy, anyway...


Hmmmmm....One of my favorite book titles is Judge Judy's "Don't Pee On My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
Happy Turkey Day, Junky...

:)


Hey, you too!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
New Topic Posted:
South Florida StormWatch
(main site)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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.

Any thinking person can and maybe ought to be a skeptic. For now, I remain skeptical on both sides of this issue.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 150 - 100

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

Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

About

Dr. Masters co-founded wunderground in 1995. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990. Co-blogging with him: Bob Henson, @bhensonweather

Local Weather

Overcast
20 °F
Overcast

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Afternoon clouds over Southwest Puerto Rico
Storm clouds gathering over Half Dome
Sierra snow
snowman at Yosemite Falls