background preloader

Denier Information

Facebook Twitter

Why did Jerry Taylor change his stance on Climate Change? - Skeptical Science. Jerry Taylor was once a very vocal active Climate Change denier. As staff director of the energy and environment task force at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and vice president of the Cato Institute, it was his job be take this stance, but he did this, not because it was simply a job, but because he was truly convinced that he was right. Today he is director of the Niskanen Center. Their stance is that global warming is quite real and that “industrial emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause”. What is truly fascinating is that a vocal climate change denier deeply invested in that stance changed his mind. How and why did he make this transition? The Sharon Lerner interview Sharon Lerner reached out to Mr Taylor and interviewed him about his change of heart. Jerry Taylor: From 1991 through 2000, I was a pretty good warrior on that front.

SL: What was your turning point? JT: It started in the early 2000s. SL: So that was it? JT: It was more gradual. Like this: Related. Washington Post Writer Finally Discloses He's a Shill for Fossil Fuel Industry. In his latest column repeating his clients’ attacks on climate change policies, lobbyist and Washington Post writer Ed Rogers finally disclosed to readers that his lobbying firm “represents interests in the fossil fuel [industry].” Rogers is the chairman of BGR Group, a top lobbying firm that has received more than $700,000 from the energy industry in 2015. Rogers has personally lobbied this year for Southern Company, one of the largest electric utility companies in the U.S.

—and one of the biggest opponents of the most significant U.S. policy to combat climate change. Rogers’ disclosure, which was placed in a parenthetical in the middle of his Dec. 17 column, could help Post readers recognize that they should take his opinions on the United Nations’ historic Paris climate agreement with a grain of salt (he says it’s a “sham”). The Post’s past failure to require Rogers to disclose his lobbying firm’s clients—both fossil fuel and otherwise—drew criticism from media ethicists. CRACKED! Top Climate Scientist Admits to Ongoing Geoengineering - Chemtrails Project UK. Professor Tim Lenton (Chair in Climate Change/Earth Systems Science, University of Exeter) provided one of the many positive outcomes of this summer’s climate change conference in Paris.

You may have missed this major admission from Professor Lenton which we originally broke in our Paris Report, so we revisit it here and round off with a little more discussion. His “revelations” occurred on day 2 of the climate change conference in Paris that ran from 7th to 10th July, 2015. As you will see from the transcript and video excerpts, below, Professor Lenton initially denied that geoengineering activities were already occurring but, when pressed further, he threw in the towel and conceded that the geoengineering of our skies was indeed already happening. Transcript of Geoengineering-related Discussions Olga Raffa, Chemtrails Project UK: My name’s Olga Raffa, from

Prof. Dr. Prof. Video Excerpt The original, full video from this session last 1 hour 39 minutes 43 seconds. It Wasn't Only Exxon That Knew About Global Warming Since the 1970s. It wasn’t just Exxon that knew fossil fuels were cooking the planet. New investigative reporting by Neela Banerjee with Inside Climate News revealed on Tuesday that scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company may have for decades known about the impacts of carbon emissions on the climate. Between 1979 and 1983, the American Petroleum Institute (API), the industry’s most powerful lobby group, ran a task force for fossil fuel companies to “monitor and share climate research,” according to internal documents obtained by Inside Climate News.

According to the reporting: Like Exxon, the companies also expressed a willingness to understand the links between their product, greater CO2 concentrations and the climate, the papers reveal. Some corporations ran their own research units as well, although they were smaller and less ambitious than Exxon’s and focused on climate modeling, said James J. Nelson, the former director of the task force. Bruce S. Ted Cruz Challenged Science At His Climate Change Hearing. Science Won. “Facts matter, science matters, data matters. That’s what this hearing is about.” That’s how Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the chairman of the Senate’s Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, began a Monday hearing he called about the reality of human-caused climate change.

Cruz — who is also running for president — does not believe that human-caused climate change is real, which he made clear at Monday’s hearing. The thing about Cruz, though, it’s that he’s a master of political debate. Much of the information Cruz cited, however, was presented in perplexing ways. So, with his assertion that “science and data matter” in mind, here is a debunking of some unscientific things Cruz said during his climate change hearing.

What Ted Cruz Said: A bunch of scientists got stuck in Antarctic ice last year, so John Kerry was wrong about Arctic ice melt. “The summer of 2013 has come and gone, and John Kerry was not just a little bit — he was wildly, extraordinarily, entirely wrong. Busted: Academics-for-Hire Exposed for Failing to Disclose Fossil Fuel Funding. A Greenpeace undercover investigation has exposed how fossil fuel companies can secretly pay academics at leading American universities to write research that sows doubt about climate science and promotes the companies’ commercial interests. Posing as representatives of oil and coal companies, investigators from Greenpeace UK asked academics from Princeton and Penn State to write papers promoting the benefits of CO2 and the use of coal in developing countries. The professors agreed to write the reports and said they did not need to disclose the source of the funding.

Citing industry-funded documents—including testimony to state hearings and newspaper articles—Professor Frank Clemente of Penn State said: “In none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is published as an independent scholar.” The leading climate-skeptic academic, Professor William Happer, agreed to write a report for a Middle Eastern oil company and to allow the firm to keep the source of the funding secret.

Let’s Talk for Real — About Humans and Climate Change. By Foster Gamble Climate change may be the hottest topic on the table, reaching a level of religious zealotry on both sides of the issue. It’s remarkable that something with such dire implications can be so void of respectful dialogue and intellectual rigor. Foster sorting years of research for this blog Leslie, Rob I have personally had hundreds of conversations about the climate: if it’s changing, who and what is responsible, what we can do, and how can we even know what source of information to trust? There seem to be corporate or government shills on both sides, each with an agenda to promote.

Following is a compilation of many of the conversations I’ve had, reflecting various perspectives and data, to help broaden the dialogue and empower individuals everywhere to add their own critical thinking to this pressing and consequential issue. Let’s start with what is probably the most common question: Is there reliable evidence that the Earth is warming in a risky or anomalous way?

Books. Ted Cruz Lies Again About the Science of Climate Change. How the Oil & Gas Industry Turned Colorado From Blue to Red. If money is speech, then it stands to reason that a very small number of very wealthy people can effectively drown out the voices of the multitude on issues they determine worthy of a shout via their checkbooks. Currently in Colorado, the issues where this money/speech is reaching the highest decibels are oil and gas extraction, aka fracking, and education issues such as the 2013 battle over Amendment 66 and the ongoing push by some for a school voucher system or other form of school choice.

Even before the Supreme Court’s controversial “Citizens United” ruling, campaign finance laws had blurred the lines between dollars and words. It never seemed to matter that polls have long shown nearly 80 percent of us disagree with this notion that money is simply an extension of the voice we use to express our views and should therefore be unlimited. And that’s where this investigation comes in, because that room, or some wall-less facsimile thereof, does exist. About Those Facts. Exxon Advertised Against Climate Change for Decades After Top Executives Knew Burning Fossil Fuels Would Warm the Planet.

This week, Inside Climate published some new revelations about one of the world’s biggest oil companies: that scientists working for Exxon knew about climate change as early as 1977. Exxon’s own scientists conducted an extensive research program on climate change and “The Greenhouse Effect,” running complex CO2 monitoring experiments and publishing peer-reviewed papers, because the company was deeply interested in this emerging threat to its core business, oil and ultimately the company’s survival. There is now no doubt that Exxon has known about the science and the risks of global warming for decades. The news will perhaps be of great interest to those lawyers who successfully prosecuted the tobacco industry, which hid its knowledge of the science around tobacco’s addiction, and the impact of second hand smoke.

Exxon Advertising Fully Contradicted Exxon Scientists We at PolluterWatch have collected an archive of these ads from the 1970’s to 2004. The Mobil Ads The ExxonMobil Ads. Digging into big coal's climate connections | Science. Have you heard about the group that has abused open records laws to harass climate scientists across the United States? The organization behind North Carolina’s ban on using sea level science to inform coastal planning? The institution attacking renewable energy targets? These are all activities of the innocuous-sounding Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal). Now, thanks to a scoop by Lee Fang at The Intercept, we now know where some of their money comes from. It’s the coal industry. We have known for years that privately funded organizations have attacked climate scientists, both in the US and the UK, to the extent that they had to set up a legal defence fund. Now, the bankruptcy filings of Alpha Natural Resources, a large Virginia-based coal company, provide a rare window into the list of political and advocacy organizations the company has funded.

In the US, companies are usually not required to disclose this kind of spending, so public scrutiny is grossly inadequate. European Budgets Cut Back on Green Solar and Wind Energy. On Jan. 30, a letter arrived at 10 Downing Street from 101 Members of Parliament, addressed to Prime Minister David Cameron. Its message: Stop taxpayer subsidies for wind power. The call is being echoed across Europe, where governments are reconsidering what they — and taxpayers — can afford in terms of green-energy initiatives in an age of austerity.

In the boom times before the global economic crisis, European governments were eager to pump cash into renewable sources of energy to make them competitive with fossil fuels and meet carbon-dioxide-reduction targets. But with pensions, health care and education budgets already feeling the chill, lavish spending on clean energy has become harder to justify. Greece, France and the U.K. have slashed subsidies for solar power since the recession began in 2008, and even economic powerhouse Germany has announced it will eliminate government support for solar panels by 2015. Clean energy has certainly provided ample fuel for global posturing. Renewable energy losing its shine in Europe. BERLIN -- For British entrepreneur Timothy Porter and millions of other Europeans who get generous financial incentives for solar panels, the sun has been very lucrative.

Not only does the government pay Porter for producing solar energy he produces, at far higher than the market rate for electricity, but he can also use what he generates for himself. "It's fantastic," he said, admiring the solar panel he installed on the roof of his home in the English West Midlands two years ago. Such subsidies are widespread in Europe, where policymakers say that energy from wind and the sun will stave global temperature increases they blame on the use of fossil fuels like oil and coal.

But Europe's debt crisis has many countries worrying more about their bottom line than climate. Governments around the world have watched Europe as it has moved to implement generous subsidy schemes like Porter's to meet ambitious green energy goals and race towards a future free of fossil fuels. ? But at what price? Europeans learning the hard truth about wind and solar energy. Although blades on the 150-foot wind turbines at the new German offshore Riffgat power plant 9 miles off the North Sea island of Bokum are finally turning, there is one big problem. They are doing so only because they are being powered by onshore fossil-fueled generators to prevent the rotors from corroding in salty air. And why might that be? Well although they otherwise function perfectly, the underfinanced grid operator hasn’t yet connected a power line because of problems attracting investor financing.

Prospective investors attribute their reluctance to a lack of market confidence. While half a dozen wind farms are still being built in the North Sea, there are no follow-up contracts. There is little mystery regarding a clear lack of clamor for wind in the energy marketplace. Politicians are getting the message. Merkel faces September parliamentary elections where big energy bills imposed upon households and businesses are a hot issue. The Problems Aren’t Just Blowing Offshore.