So the Oceans are rising are they?

[wirebender]

Strongest La Nina in a long time. And, by that graph, no where near the negative anamoly that we saw after the Super El Nino of 1998. In fact, by your own graph, from 2002 to 2007, the average analomy was about the same as the very highest points on the graph prior to that time, excepting 1998.

2010, a moderate El Nino, with the last few months of the year in a very strong La Nina, yet managed to tie 1998, along with 2005, for the warmest year on record. Not only that, look at the temperature analomys from 1983 to 1987. All the points were lower than -0.1.

UAH Temperature Update for Feb. 2011: -0.02 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

And the wait continues for you to provide even a shred of observed evidence that provides unequivocal proof that man is responsible for the changing global climate.

 

[IanC]

Arctic Warming Overtakes 2,000 Years of Natural Cooling University Corporation for Atmospheric Research September 03 , 2009

this paper has a Hockey Stick graph in it, and is written by members of the hockey team. in the late 90s Jones, Mann and company started clipping data sets to fit their personal theories. because they werent called out for it they continued to fudge the data with ever greater impunity. when M and M came along and tried to reproduce the results they went into defensive mode and scoured the available data for more corruptible sets that would support them, instead of doing transparent science. the list of truncated data, use of out of date data sets, use of improper data sets, and use of improper statistical methodologies is a long one. the fact that the rest of the scientific community hasnt come down on them is very disappointing.

there is too much disreputable work being done in climate science for the few talented amateurs and close-to-retired insiders to debunk it all. and 'pal' review instead of peer review is slowing it down even more.

 

[IanC]

hey Old Rocks- time to update your Spencer link. down another .099C

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes it is. Surprising that the anamoly is only -0.1. After all, it stayed below that level from 1983 to 1987.
And, after the monster El Nino of 1998, it dropped to less than -0.3. And the weaker La Nina of 2008 dropped it to a -0.3. So we should be getting more of a drop. This is the strongest La Nina we have seen in about 40 years, we really should have seen a much colder winter that we did.

UAH Temperature Update for Feb. 2011: -0.02 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic Warming Overtakes 2,000 Years of Natural Cooling University Corporation for Atmospheric Research September 03 , 2009

this paper has a Hockey Stick graph in it, and is written by members of the hockey team. in the late 90s Jones, Mann and company started clipping data sets to fit their personal theories. because they werent called out for it they continued to fudge the data with ever greater impunity. when M and M came along and tried to reproduce the results they went into defensive mode and scoured the available data for more corruptible sets that would support them, instead of doing transparent science. the list of truncated data, use of out of date data sets, use of improper data sets, and use of improper statistical methodologies is a long one. the fact that the rest of the scientific community hasnt come down on them is very disappointing.

there is too much disreputable work being done in climate science for the few talented amateurs and close-to-retired insiders to debunk it all. and 'pal' review instead of peer review is slowing it down even more.

In other words, those damned scientists just keep doing science.

Show your links.

 

[xotoxi]

laugh......my.....balls......off

That makes you a EUNICH, s0n!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

LOLOLOLOL....yeah, we all figured that was what happened to your brain when you were confronted with the actual facts of the matter and your denier cult myths were shown to be the worthless shit that they are.

 

[IanC]

Arctic Warming Overtakes 2,000 Years of Natural Cooling University Corporation for Atmospheric Research September 03 , 2009

this paper has a Hockey Stick graph in it, and is written by members of the hockey team. in the late 90s Jones, Mann and company started clipping data sets to fit their personal theories. because they werent called out for it they continued to fudge the data with ever greater impunity. when M and M came along and tried to reproduce the results they went into defensive mode and scoured the available data for more corruptible sets that would support them, instead of doing transparent science. the list of truncated data, use of out of date data sets, use of improper data sets, and use of improper statistical methodologies is a long one. the fact that the rest of the scientific community hasnt come down on them is very disappointing.

there is too much disreputable work being done in climate science for the few talented amateurs and close-to-retired insiders to debunk it all. and 'pal' review instead of peer review is slowing it down even more.

In other words, those damned scientists just keep doing science.

Show your links.

why are YOU asking for links? you have refused to discuss them numerous times in the past but now you want to see them again? go back and bump any thread you want. I only have my phone right now

 

[RollingThunder]

Arctic Warming Overtakes 2,000 Years of Natural Cooling University Corporation for Atmospheric Research September 03 , 2009

this paper has a Hockey Stick graph in it, and is written by members of the hockey team. in the late 90s Jones, Mann and company started clipping data sets to fit their personal theories. because they werent called out for it they continued to fudge the data with ever greater impunity. when M and M came along and tried to reproduce the results they went into defensive mode and scoured the available data for more corruptible sets that would support them, instead of doing transparent science. the list of truncated data, use of out of date data sets, use of improper data sets, and use of improper statistical methodologies is a long one. the fact that the rest of the scientific community hasnt come down on them is very disappointing.

there is too much disreputable work being done in climate science for the few talented amateurs and close-to-retired insiders to debunk it all. and 'pal' review instead of peer review is slowing it down even more.

That's the propaganda bullshit you swallowed but it is largely a fantasy. The original hockey stick graph had some errors in the statistical analysis that have since been resolved but those revisions and further studies show that the basic facts shown by the graph are still accurate and these facts have been repeatedly verified and confirmed by other scientists independently. You've been told a lot of lies that appeal to your ideological biases and depend on your ignorance of science for belief.

What we've learned in 2008
Nature
Published online: 18 December 2008 | Corrected online: 6 January 2009 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.142
(short excerpt)

A follow-up to the infamous 1998 'hockey stick' curve confirmed that the past two decades are the warmest in recent history. Climatologist Michael Mann's contentious graph has become a symbol of the fierce debates on evidence for global warming, to the extent that an independent investigation into the study was performed at the request of US Congressman Joe Barton. The 2006 report that resulted from the Barton enquiry criticized Mann and colleagues for their reliance on tree-ring data from bristlecone pines as a proxy to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1,000 years. Although their earlier work had been largely vindicated, in September the same team revised their global surface temperature estimates for the past 2,000 years, using a greatly expanded set of proxies, including marine sediments, ice cores, coral and historical documents (Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 13252–13257; 2008). The team reconstructed global temperatures with and without inclusion of the tree-ring records: without their inclusion, the data showed that recent warming is greater than at any point in at least the past 1,300 years; inclusion of tree-ring data extended this period to at least 1,700 years. According to the Christian Science Monitor: "It still looks a lot like the much-battered, but still rink-ready stick of 1998. Today the handle reaches further back and it's a bit more gnarly. But the blade at the business end tells the same story."


***
Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph

A new analysis creates a better look at rising temperatures

Scientific American
By David Appell
October 28, 2009
(short excerpt)

The “hockey stick” graph has been both a linchpin and target in the climate change debate. As a plot of average Northern Hemisphere temperature from two millennia ago to the present, it stays relatively flat until the 20th century, when it rises up sharply, like the blade of an upturned hockey stick. Warming skeptics have long decried how the temperatures were inferred, but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts.


***
Sorry deniers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger: Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years
September 3, 2008

“Ten years ago the estimates for earlier centuries were really primarily reliant on just one sort of information: tree ring measurements,” said Mann of Pennsylvania State University.

“To satisfy the critics, we now have enough other sources that we can achieve meaningful reconstructions back a thousand years without tree ring data, and we get more or less the same answer”–that global warming is not mainly due to natural variability.



***
The Hockey Stick is Accurate
Mar 15, 2010
(excerpt)

In the following graph from the IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report from 2007 you can see the hockey stick results from MBH99 plotted alongside 12 other temperature realizations going back to 1000 ad.

The Hockey Stick graph along with 12 other Temperature reconstructions from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

The paper “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence” by Wahl and Ammann assesses the results of the MBH98 by using principal component analysis in the appropriate way. Wahl and Ammann also looked at the impact of removing the Bristlecone and Foxtail Pine proxy data which McIntyre and McKitrick had criticized the use of in both MBH98 and MBH99. They published the results of their work and you can see the impact that this had on the shape of the Hockey Stick in the graph below.[/I]

Wahl and Ammann then left out using principal component analysis altogether and you can see the result below.

 

[wirebender]

What we've learned in 2008
Nature
Published online: 18 December 2008 | Corrected online: 6 January 2009 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.142


***
Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph

A new analysis creates a better look at rising temperatures

***
The Hockey Stick is Accurate
Mar 15, 2010
(excerpt)


Wahl and Ammann then left out using principal component analysis altogether and you can see the result below.

Laughable. The things the uneducated can be led to believe. The hockey stick is, and always has been a crock o crap.

http://www.e-publications.org/ims/s...OAS/user/submissionFile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf

http://www.e-publications.org/ims/s...OAS/user/submissionFile/8791?confirm=1054a880

 

[westwall]

What we've learned in 2008
Nature
Published online: 18 December 2008 | Corrected online: 6 January 2009 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.142


***
Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph

A new analysis creates a better look at rising temperatures

***
The Hockey Stick is Accurate
Mar 15, 2010
(excerpt)


Wahl and Ammann then left out using principal component analysis altogether and you can see the result below.

Laughable. The things the uneducated can be led to believe. The hockey stick is, and always has been a crock o crap.

http://www.e-publications.org/ims/s...OAS/user/submissionFile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf

http://www.e-publications.org/ims/s...OAS/user/submissionFile/8791?confirm=1054a880

This would be one of the MANY relevent paragraphs.....

"The first major controversy erupted when McIntyre and McKitrick (M&M)
successfully replicated the Mann et al. (1998) study (McIntyre and McKitrick,
2003, 2005b,a). M&M observed that the original Mann et al. (1998)
study (i) used only one principal component of the proxy record and (ii)
calculated the principal components in a ”skew”-centered fashion such that
they were centered by the mean of the proxy data over the instrumental period
(instead of the more standard technique of centering by the mean of
the entire data record). Given that the proxy series is itself auto-correlated,
this scaling has the effect of producing a first principal component which
is hockey-stick shaped (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003) and, thus, hockeystick
shaped temperature reconstructions. That is, the very method used in
Mann et al. (1998) guarantees the shape of Figure 1. M&M made a further
contribution by applying the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction methodology
to principal components computed in the standard fashion. The resulting
reconstruction showed a rise in temperature in the medieval period,
thus eliminating the hockey stick shape."

 

[RollingThunder]

What we've learned in 2008
Nature
Published online: 18 December 2008 | Corrected online: 6 January 2009 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.142
...the data showed that recent warming is greater than at any point in at least the past 1,300 years; inclusion of tree-ring data extended this period to at least 1,700 years.

***
Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph
Scientific American
October 28, 2009
A new analysis creates a better look at rising temperatures
...a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results...

***
Sorry deniers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger: Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years
September 3, 2008

“Ten years ago the estimates for earlier centuries were really primarily reliant on just one sort of information: tree ring measurements,” said Mann of Pennsylvania State University. “To satisfy the critics, we now have enough other sources that we can achieve meaningful reconstructions back a thousand years without tree ring data, and we get more or less the same answer”–that global warming is not mainly due to natural variability.

***
The Hockey Stick is Accurate
Mar 15, 2010
(excerpt)

The paper “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence” by Wahl and Ammann assesses the results of the MBH98 by using principal component analysis in the appropriate way. Wahl and Ammann also looked at the impact of removing the Bristlecone and Foxtail Pine proxy data which McIntyre and McKitrick had criticized the use of in both MBH98 and MBH99.

Laughable. The things the uneducated can be led to believe. The hockey stick is, and always has been a crock o crap.

http://www.e-publications.org/ims/s...OAS/user/submissionFile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf

http://www.e-publications.org/ims/s...OAS/user/submissionFile/8791?confirm=1054a880

LOLOLOLOL....very ironic, coming from a uneducated denier cult retard like you who lets the oil corp propagandists lead him around by the nose. The hockey stick graph is and always has been a basically accurate and sound piece of science. As the links I posted demonstrated, the quibbles about the statistics were corrected and turned out to not make much difference and the objections to the tree ring proxies were surmounted by using a wide variety of other, more reliable proxies. Many other independent analyses of the temperature record by scientists from around the world have produced graphs substantially the same as the original hockey stick graph and the results all indicate the same fact - modern warming is beyond the range of natural variability and correlates to rising CO2 levels.

It is the futile attempts of the fossil fuel industry propaganda machine to discredit the science behind the conclusions of the world's climate scientists that is the "crock o' crap". The problem is that you half-wit anti-science rightwingnuts must like the flavor of crap so you swallow it again and again no matter how often it is thoroughly debunked.

 

[westwall]

What we've learned in 2008
Nature
Published online: 18 December 2008 | Corrected online: 6 January 2009 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.142
...the data showed that recent warming is greater than at any point in at least the past 1,300 years; inclusion of tree-ring data extended this period to at least 1,700 years.

***
Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph
Scientific American
October 28, 2009
A new analysis creates a better look at rising temperatures
...a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results...

***
Sorry deniers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger: Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years
September 3, 2008

“Ten years ago the estimates for earlier centuries were really primarily reliant on just one sort of information: tree ring measurements,” said Mann of Pennsylvania State University. “To satisfy the critics, we now have enough other sources that we can achieve meaningful reconstructions back a thousand years without tree ring data, and we get more or less the same answer”–that global warming is not mainly due to natural variability.

***
The Hockey Stick is Accurate
Mar 15, 2010
(excerpt)

The paper “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence” by Wahl and Ammann assesses the results of the MBH98 by using principal component analysis in the appropriate way. Wahl and Ammann also looked at the impact of removing the Bristlecone and Foxtail Pine proxy data which McIntyre and McKitrick had criticized the use of in both MBH98 and MBH99.

Laughable. The things the uneducated can be led to believe. The hockey stick is, and always has been a crock o crap.

http://www.e-publications.org/ims/s...OAS/user/submissionFile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf

http://www.e-publications.org/ims/s...OAS/user/submissionFile/8791?confirm=1054a880

LOLOLOLOL....very ironic, coming from a uneducated denier cult retard like you who lets the oil corp propagandists lead him around by the nose. The hockey stick graph is and always has been a basically accurate and sound piece of science. As the links I posted demonstrated, the quibbles about the statistics were corrected and turned out to not make much difference and the objections to the tree ring proxies were surmounted by using a wide variety of other, more reliable proxies. Many other independent analyses of the temperature record by scientists from around the world have produced graphs substantially the same as the original hockey stick graph and the results all indicate the same fact - modern warming is beyond the range of natural variability and correlates to rising CO2 levels.

It is the futile attempts of the fossil fuel industry propaganda machine to discredit the science behind the conclusions of the world's climate scientists that is the "crock o' crap". The problem is that you half-wit anti-science rightwingnuts must like the flavor of crap so you swallow it again and again no matter how often it is thoroughly debunked.

Futile? Fossil fuel industry? I guess you missed the collapse of Copenhagen and Cancun. Cap and Trade is toast. Yep, that's futile for sure. You are just a pathetic foulmouthed ignorant twit. Some day you may actually graduate from Jr. Highschool (though I doubt it) and when you actually do finally (hopefully) succeed in that endeavor try something fun 'cause you're lousy at debate.

 

[RollingThunder]

LOLOLOLOL....very ironic, coming from a uneducated denier cult retard like you who lets the oil corp propagandists lead him around by the nose. The hockey stick graph is and always has been a basically accurate and sound piece of science. As the links I posted demonstrated, the quibbles about the statistics were corrected and turned out to not make much difference and the objections to the tree ring proxies were surmounted by using a wide variety of other, more reliable proxies. Many other independent analyses of the temperature record by scientists from around the world have produced graphs substantially the same as the original hockey stick graph and the results all indicate the same fact - modern warming is beyond the range of natural variability and correlates to rising CO2 levels.

It is the futile attempts of the fossil fuel industry propaganda machine to discredit the science behind the conclusions of the world's climate scientists that is the "crock o' crap". The problem is that you half-wit anti-science rightwingnuts must like the flavor of crap so you swallow it again and again no matter how often it is thoroughly debunked.

Futile? Fossil fuel industry? I guess you missed the collapse of Copenhagen and Cancun. Cap and Trade is toast. Yep, that's futile for sure. You are just a pathetic foulmouthed ignorant twit. Some day you may actually graduate from Jr. Highschool (though I doubt it) and when you actually do finally (hopefully) succeed in that endeavor try something fun 'cause you're lousy at debate.

LOLOL.....so says the silly windbag stooge for the fossil fuel industry. Too bad you can never seem to back up your delusions about climate science with any facts or evidence. Too bad you lose every debate you get in because you're full of ignorant opinions but short on actual facts about the real world.

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
(excerpt)

Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million [thru '05, 28M to date] to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3, 2007 – A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

* raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
* funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
* attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
* used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming

(continued with much more detailed and specific info and financial ties on website and in report linked above)

©2010 Union of Concerned Scientists

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[westwall]

LOLOLOLOL....very ironic, coming from a uneducated denier cult retard like you who lets the oil corp propagandists lead him around by the nose. The hockey stick graph is and always has been a basically accurate and sound piece of science. As the links I posted demonstrated, the quibbles about the statistics were corrected and turned out to not make much difference and the objections to the tree ring proxies were surmounted by using a wide variety of other, more reliable proxies. Many other independent analyses of the temperature record by scientists from around the world have produced graphs substantially the same as the original hockey stick graph and the results all indicate the same fact - modern warming is beyond the range of natural variability and correlates to rising CO2 levels.

It is the futile attempts of the fossil fuel industry propaganda machine to discredit the science behind the conclusions of the world's climate scientists that is the "crock o' crap". The problem is that you half-wit anti-science rightwingnuts must like the flavor of crap so you swallow it again and again no matter how often it is thoroughly debunked.

Futile? Fossil fuel industry? I guess you missed the collapse of Copenhagen and Cancun. Cap and Trade is toast. Yep, that's futile for sure. You are just a pathetic foulmouthed ignorant twit. Some day you may actually graduate from Jr. Highschool (though I doubt it) and when you actually do finally (hopefully) succeed in that endeavor try something fun 'cause you're lousy at debate.

LOLOL.....so says the silly windbag stooge for the fossil fuel industry. Too bad you can never seem to back up your delusions about climate science with any facts or evidence. Too bad you lose every debate you get in because you're full of ignorant opinions but short on actual facts about the real world.

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
(excerpt)

Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million [thru '05, 28M to date] to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3, 2007 – A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

* raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
* funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
* attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
* used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming

(continued with much more detailed and specific info and financial ties on website and in report linked above)

©2010 Union of Concerned Scientists

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

You crack me up! The only shill for big oil is you and your clones. Big oil will make trillions of dollars off of the misbegotten frauds you imbeciles are trying to foist off on the people of this country. So will economic pariahs like Goldman Sachs and all the other companies that drove the housing bubble. They are all hoping that fools like you are successful. Try researching the backers of green energy someday you would be astonished by what you find....or maybe not Mr. Shill....


Big Oil's Cutting Edge Solar Project | Green Energy News

http://www.willyoujoinus.com/discussion/topic/?d=34&s=r&x=13425&rx=13425#13425

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Walleyes is showing what a lying dumbass he is once again. The funding of the denial groups by Exxon and the like has been known for a long time, and well proven.

Exxon Mobil - SourceWatch

2006 and beyond
In October 2006, two US Senators, Olympia Snowe, (R-Maine), and Jay Rockefeller, (D-W.Va.) wrote to ExxonMobil's chairman and CEO Rex W. Tillerson, asking that it "end any further financial assistance" to groups "whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth." The Senators singled out the Competitive Enterprise Institute and TechCentralStation as such groups. They wrote that "we are convinced that ExxonMobil's long-standing support of a small cadre of global climate change skeptics, and those skeptics' access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy". [4]


Skeptic funding progressively cut back under Rex Tillerson
"Exxon will not contribute to some nine groups in 2008 that it funded in 2007...The groups Exxon has stopped funding include the Capital Research Center, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Institute for Energy Research... Exxon's tone on climate change has softened since Tillerson took the reins of the company at the beginning of 2006, replacing the often-combative Lee Raymond. Tillerson has said that nations should work toward a global policy to fight climate change and in 2006 [and again in 2007] the company stopped funding a handful of groups that were climate change skeptics. [2]


Or not...
But Exxon continued to fund a further 28 groups which campaigned against climate science. And the Center for Science in the public Interest stated in June 2008, "Each group continued to receive Exxon funding in 2007 after the company’s first announcement that it would discontinue the payments. Exxon did not immediately return calls seeking comment on how serious it was in following through on its plans." [3].


2009+: Green company or no? Lobbying expenditures continue
In 2009, Exxon Mobil spent $27.5 million in lobbying against global warming, which is their second highest year on the books after 2008 election year. [4] Odwyer's Magazine describes Exxon's efforts as misleading: "ExxonMobil, absurdly praised in August by Forbes as “green company of the year,” was discovered the same month by the New York Times to have given major funding to industry groups like the now-defunct Global Climate Coalition, an organization that had silenced its own scientific reports and falsified information for more than a decade." [5]

In 2010, the Walkley Foundation, the professional development arm of Australia's media union the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, chose Exxon Mobil as the Gold sponsor for its August 2010 annual conference. In July, there were reports on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's PM program and News Corporation's The Australian[5] that Exxon Mobil had broken its pledge not to fund climate skeptics. The Australian Centre for Independent Journalism (ACIJ) opposed the sponsorship and began a public petition [6] signed by journalists, environmentalists and academics asking the union to reconsider their agreement

 

[IanC]

if it is true that big oil is behind the skeptics, the other side should look into how they are spending the money because skeptics are turning the tide even though they are outspent by the AGW crowd by a thousand to one.

personally I think it is Mother Nature that is killing AGW by showing their theories are wrong with actual data

 

[RollingThunder]

Fossil fuel industry?

LOLOL.....so says the silly windbag stooge for the fossil fuel industry. Too bad you can never seem to back up your delusions about climate science with any facts or evidence. Too bad you lose every debate you get in because you're full of ignorant opinions but short on actual facts about the real world.

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
(excerpt)

Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million [thru '05, 28M to date] to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3, 2007 – A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

* raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
* funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
* attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
* used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming

(continued with much more detailed and specific info and financial ties on website and in report linked above)

©2010 Union of Concerned Scientists

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

You crack me up!

Sorry but I can't take credit for that one. You were already cracked when I got here.

The only shill for big oil is you and your clones. Big oil will make trillions of dollars off of the misbegotten frauds you imbeciles are trying to foist off on the people of this country.

Well, walleyed, you've managed to sound like an even bigger idiot than you did before and I frankly didn't think that was possible. Congratulations, you win the "Biggest Moron of the Week" award, which must be much coveted in denier cult circles, considering how fiercely you all compete for it.

Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry, which includes all of the oil producing nations and all of the many, many corporations worldwide that extract the oil, gas and coal, that refine and process it, that transport the raw materials to the refineries and processing plants, that transport the fuel to markets worldwide, that sell the fuels (gasoline, diesel, coal, natural gas, etc.), that use the fuels to run power plants and then sell the power to consumers and industry, plus maintenance and support for all that, their total yearly profits run over a trillion dollars right now. That is the profit stream that is in danger if the world gets serious about cutting carbon emissions. That is what motivates the propaganda campaign that the fossil fuel industry has mounted in an attempt to delay binding carbon emission restrictions. And sure, some oil companies, who are only a tiny fraction of the total, worldwide 'fossil fuel industry', are hedging their bets by trying to invest in some renewables, but hopes of some future profit on those investments counts very little in the boardrooms against the very real loss of very huge profits now if fossil fuels get priced out of the energy market by an appropriately high carbon tax.

How much profit does the fossil fuel industry pull in yearly? Here's some figures for just one corporation, out of many, that deals with just oil and gas, not coal, for just one year.

Exxon Mobil booked the biggest quarterly and annual profits in U.S. corporate history

Oil giant makes corporate history by booking $11.7 billion in quarterly profit. The company earned $10.25 billion in the year-ago period. Exxon also set an annual profit record by earning $40.61 billion last year - or nearly $1,300 per second in 2007. That exceeded its previous record of $39.5 billion in 2006.

 

[westwall]

LOLOL.....so says the silly windbag stooge for the fossil fuel industry. Too bad you can never seem to back up your delusions about climate science with any facts or evidence. Too bad you lose every debate you get in because you're full of ignorant opinions but short on actual facts about the real world.

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
(excerpt)

Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million [thru '05, 28M to date] to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3, 2007 – A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

* raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
* funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
* attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
* used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming

(continued with much more detailed and specific info and financial ties on website and in report linked above)

©2010 Union of Concerned Scientists

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

You crack me up!

Sorry but I can't take credit for that one. You were already cracked when I got here.

The only shill for big oil is you and your clones. Big oil will make trillions of dollars off of the misbegotten frauds you imbeciles are trying to foist off on the people of this country.

Well, walleyed, you've managed to sound like an even bigger idiot than you did before and I frankly didn't think that was possible. Congratulations, you win the "Biggest Moron of the Week" award, which must be much coveted in denier cult circles, considering how fiercely you all compete for it.

Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry, which includes all of the oil producing nations and all of the many, many corporations worldwide that extract the oil, gas and coal, that refine and process it, that transport the raw materials to the refineries and processing plants, that transport the fuel to markets worldwide, that sell the fuels (gasoline, diesel, coal, natural gas, etc.), that use the fuels to run power plants and then sell the power to consumers and industry, plus maintenance and support for all that, their total yearly profits run over a trillion dollars right now. That is the profit stream that is in danger if the world gets serious about cutting carbon emissions. That is what motivates the propaganda campaign that the fossil fuel industry has mounted in an attempt to delay binding carbon emission restrictions. And sure, some oil companies, who are only a tiny fraction of the total, worldwide 'fossil fuel industry', are hedging their bets by trying to invest in some renewables, but hopes of some future profit on those investments counts very little in the boardrooms against the very real loss of very huge profits now if fossil fuels get priced out of the energy market by an appropriately high carbon tax.

How much profit does the fossil fuel industry pull in yearly? Here's some figures for just one corporation, out of many, that deals with just oil and gas, not coal, for just one year.

Exxon Mobil booked the biggest quarterly and annual profits in U.S. corporate history

Oil giant makes corporate history by booking $11.7 billion in quarterly profit. The company earned $10.25 billion in the year-ago period. Exxon also set an annual profit record by earning $40.61 billion last year - or nearly $1,300 per second in 2007. That exceeded its previous record of $39.5 billion in 2006.

Why thank you! In your company Moron is quite a nice appelation (that's name for you uneducated types) some day, if you're real lucky you might make it to this august level!

 

[RollingThunder]

You crack me up!

Sorry but I can't take credit for that one. You were already cracked when I got here.

The only shill for big oil is you and your clones. Big oil will make trillions of dollars off of the misbegotten frauds you imbeciles are trying to foist off on the people of this country.

Well, walleyed, you've managed to sound like an even bigger idiot than you did before and I frankly didn't think that was possible. Congratulations, you win the "Biggest Moron of the Week" award, which must be much coveted in denier cult circles, considering how fiercely you all compete for it.

Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry, which includes all of the oil producing nations and all of the many, many corporations worldwide that extract the oil, gas and coal, that refine and process it, that transport the raw materials to the refineries and processing plants, that transport the fuel to markets worldwide, that sell the fuels (gasoline, diesel, coal, natural gas, etc.), that use the fuels to run power plants and then sell the power to consumers and industry, plus maintenance and support for all that, their total yearly profits run over a trillion dollars right now. That is the profit stream that is in danger if the world gets serious about cutting carbon emissions. That is what motivates the propaganda campaign that the fossil fuel industry has mounted in an attempt to delay binding carbon emission restrictions. And sure, some oil companies, who are only a tiny fraction of the total, worldwide 'fossil fuel industry', are hedging their bets by trying to invest in some renewables, but hopes of some future profit on those investments counts very little in the boardrooms against the very real loss of very huge profits now if fossil fuels get priced out of the energy market by an appropriately high carbon tax.

How much profit does the fossil fuel industry pull in yearly? Here's some figures for just one corporation, out of many, that deals with just oil and gas, not coal, for just one year.

Exxon Mobil booked the biggest quarterly and annual profits in U.S. corporate history

Oil giant makes corporate history by booking $11.7 billion in quarterly profit. The company earned $10.25 billion in the year-ago period. Exxon also set an annual profit record by earning $40.61 billion last year - or nearly $1,300 per second in 2007. That exceeded its previous record of $39.5 billion in 2006.

Why thank you! In your company Moron is quite a nice appelation (that's name for you uneducated types) some day, if you're real lucky you might make it to this august level!

LOLOLOLOL. I guess that's what clueless morons say after they've gotten their ignorant asses whipped in every debate.