Climate Change Deniers among our Elected Representatives

[Markle]

Anthropogenic Global Warming is still Anthropogenic Global Warming

I also live in Florida. Hurricane path predictions have improved immensely in the last several years. And there is a difference between pinpointing the center of a storm five days in advance and estimating the average temperature of the planet fifty years on are two different things. As to the actual performance of contemporary GCMs:

As you know, fifty years is less than a blink of an eye when it comes to the climate on our evolving planet.

 

[Markle]

And there are the facts.

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
By JOSEPH BAST And ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:34 pm

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy,Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

Read more at:
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

 

[Marion Morrison]

OP is an idiot.

 

[hunarcy]

There is a debate going on here, on this forum, of which I am a participant. When I say there is no debate about AGW, the apparently excessively subtle point I am making is that more than 98% of the world's climate scientists are convinced that the world is getting warmer and that the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. They accepted this conclusion several years ago and have not wavered. They are no longer wondering about these points. They are completely convinced. They have moved on to other things. They are not listening to you nor the few people from whom you get your denier talking points.

I'll try to speak more simply the next time I see you on the other side.

Don't bother. Now that I know that you're a lying horse's ass, I'll have you on ignore in the future.

 

[Dale Smith]

"What would you think if your government didn't believe in gravity? If your senator alleged that, because they couldn't see it, perhaps it didn't exist. To many, this might seem absurd—the science is enough to know that it's real."

The Climate Change Deniers in Congress

"Almost 30 years ago, a NASA scientist named James Hansen pleaded with Congress, under the Reagan Administration, to accept the evidence and do something about it. "It is already happening now," Hansen said before a Congressional committee in 1988."

"Fast-forward three decades, and the United States is facing one of its most anti-science Congresses in history. Many members of the Senate and House of Representatives have gone on-record to denounce climate change as a hoax. Others have proven through their votes that regulating greenhouse gas emissions is not a priority. And still, some state representatives claim to believe in human-made climate change, but consistently support policies that would erode initiatives to combat it."

The colors used here are no mistake. The alignment between a representatives position on AGW and his political party is almost perfect. And you can see many instances of the same reasoning you'll find here on this forum, in the halls of our Congress. The most common answer seen from our representatives is that the Earth's climate has always been dynamic and that the changes over the last century and a half are simply Mother Nature at work. Unsurprisingly, that reasoning is as easily refuted as all the rest. Of course the Earth's climate is dynamic, but through its very long history, that dynamicism has resulted in changes orders of magnitude slower than the changes we are witnessing now. And the various variable factors that naturally control our climate: ex solar irradiance and orbital mechanics, indicate that we should be cooling now. But, of course, we are not.

So, once again, would you vote for a representative that didn't believe in gravity? What if he thought we were all actually held down by magnetism or by wee demons trying to drag us to Hell? Would you vote for a senate candidate that believed the Earth was flat, that humans had never traveled to space, much less the moon? Would you vote for a presidential candidate who believed that modern medicine was an evil to be eliminated from modern society? The belief that the rate of warming we are currently experiencing is a natural climatic change (or a lie constructed by thousands of corrupt scientists) and that human GHG emissions have no involvement, is just as false and just as dangerous.

You just keep doubling down on "stupid" and hope that I don't chime in and blow up your thread proving that "Climate Change" is an artificial construct and the real perps are the ones using geo-engineering.

Sucks to be you.....

This was the spraying done tonight........

Jets that were flying ABOVE the SAIs laid down condensation trails that dissipated within seconds and when I say flying above them? I am saying at least 10,000 feet higher.......

 

[SSDD]

And, among the scientists of the world, there is no longer a debate. YOURS is precisely the strategy that was employed by the tobacco industry to create a false impression that there was some debate as to whether or not cigarettes were harmful. Not surprising since the false debate scam was brought about by the exact same people.

Do you touch your children with the hands that type that shit?

You think no debate among the scientists of the world is a good thing? Really? You are that stupid? The debate on any topic should never be over. A series of recent studies just overturned another long held consensus....and yet another instance where I was ultimately proven right while the consensus was quiet wrong...low dose aspirin. My doc has been trying to push low dose aspirin on me for about 20 years now...even though my heart is in good shape, and there is no history of heart problems in my family....The medical guidelines were just changed due to a preponderance of the evidence...that low dose aspirin does no good after you are 40 and can cause far more problems than it can prevent...

The debate should never be over in science on any topic...ever... When it is, there is a problem with the science...and we know there is a serious problem with climate science...that problem being that it is pseudoscience wearing a disguise provided by politics that gives it the appearance of science to those who lack the intellectual wattage to actually consider the data...

 

[SSDD]

We're in the US. where denial-propaganda has been full throttle for decades and already dumbed-down Americans are very easily snookered. And the rest are too busy to worry about it.

It is true that dumbed down Americans are easily snookered...You prove it. Being a dumbed down American, I bet you didn't know that there is not a single piece of observed evidence that supports the claim that the climate change we have experienced is in any way different from natural variability....I bet that you didn't know that there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere.....

And most importantly, I bet you didn't know that there has not been a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses. Not a single one.

A gross lack of any sort of empirical evidence and yet, the younger generations of Americans have been so dumbed down that they believe anyway. They are just like you..they can't even think far enough into the topic to grasp what the lack of evidence means...they are so uneducated that they must put their trust in scientists who have proven that they aren't worthy of that trust...they are reduced to believing that by calling names, and putting forth arguments composed of logical fallacies that they are actually defending their position.

Yes, dumbed down Americans, and the dumbed down of other nations are easily snookered...and one of the worst symptoms is that they are so dumbed down that they don't even know that they have been snookered..

 

[SSDD]

France is a democracy.

Do you NOT want a democracy here?

No, we do not.

What we want, and what we are supposed to have, is a constitutional republic, with limited government.

I was using the term democracy to indicate that French citizens vote for their leaders and representatives. France is also a constitutional republic. "

Your addendum concerning limited government is not to be found in the Constitution.

Over in France... Do you want that type of government here?

We aren't a constitutional republic either skidmark...we are a representative republic... you exemplify the dumbed down American that angelo talks about and doesn't realize he is among their number...you don't even know what sort of government you live under...

 

[Cellblock2429]

"What would you think if your government didn't believe in gravity? If your senator alleged that, because they couldn't see it, perhaps it didn't exist. To many, this might seem absurd—the science is enough to know that it's real."

The Climate Change Deniers in Congress

"Almost 30 years ago, a NASA scientist named James Hansen pleaded with Congress, under the Reagan Administration, to accept the evidence and do something about it. "It is already happening now," Hansen said before a Congressional committee in 1988."

"Fast-forward three decades, and the United States is facing one of its most anti-science Congresses in history. Many members of the Senate and House of Representatives have gone on-record to denounce climate change as a hoax. Others have proven through their votes that regulating greenhouse gas emissions is not a priority. And still, some state representatives claim to believe in human-made climate change, but consistently support policies that would erode initiatives to combat it."

The colors used here are no mistake. The alignment between a representatives position on AGW and his political party is almost perfect. And you can see many instances of the same reasoning you'll find here on this forum, in the halls of our Congress. The most common answer seen from our representatives is that the Earth's climate has always been dynamic and that the changes over the last century and a half are simply Mother Nature at work. Unsurprisingly, that reasoning is as easily refuted as all the rest. Of course the Earth's climate is dynamic, but through its very long history, that dynamicism has resulted in changes orders of magnitude slower than the changes we are witnessing now. And the various variable factors that naturally control our climate: ex solar irradiance and orbital mechanics, indicate that we should be cooling now. But, of course, we are not.

So, once again, would you vote for a representative that didn't believe in gravity? What if he thought we were all actually held down by magnetism or by wee demons trying to drag us to Hell? Would you vote for a senate candidate that believed the Earth was flat, that humans had never traveled to space, much less the moon? Would you vote for a presidential candidate who believed that modern medicine was an evil to be eliminated from modern society? The belief that the rate of warming we are currently experiencing is a natural climatic change (or a lie constructed by thousands of corrupt scientists) and that human GHG emissions have no involvement, is just as false and just as dangerous.

/——/ How many baby life deniers are in Congress?

 

[SSDD]

There is a debate going on here, on this forum, of which I am a participant. When I say there is no debate about AGW, the apparently excessively subtle point I am making is that more than 98% of the world's climate scientists are convinced that the world is getting warmer and that the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. They accepted this conclusion several years ago and have not wavered. They are no longer wondering about these points. They are completely convinced. They have moved on to other things. They are not listening to you nor the few people from whom you get your denier talking points.

I'll try to speak more simply the next time I see you on the other side.

500 papers were published in 2018 that were skeptical of the consensus view on the various aspects of climate science...this year, it will be more..and next year it will be more...the scam is dying the death of 1000 cuts..

 

[SSDD]

I was using the term democracy to indicate that French citizens vote for their leaders and representatives. France is also a constitutional republic. "

Words have meanings. If you don't use words to carry the meanings that others understand them to have, then at best, this results in miscommunication, if not outright, willful deceit.

Your addendum concerning limited government is not to be found in the Constitution.

At the federal level, it absolutely is in there. The Constitution specifically enumerates the finite, limited powers that the federal government is to have, and the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from claiming or exercising powers outside those that are specifically designated to it.

The skid mark knows exactly jack....pick a topic...ask him to speak on it and it takes about 3 sentences to realize that he is ignorant and just pulling fake facts out of his ass...

 

[Cellblock2429]

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?
The Medieval Warm Period spanned between the 10th and 15th centuries, and corresponded with warmer temperatures in certain regions around the world. During this time, ice-free seas allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland. North America experienced prolonged droughts. Just how hot was the Medieval Warm Period? Was the globe warmer than now? To answer this question, one needs to look beyond warming in a few regions and view temperatures on a global scale.

Medieval Warm Period

Warming through 2008

/——/ Who was taking the temperatures and recording them during the 10th to 15th Centuries?

 

[SSDD]

You made a deflection

Posting images of a climate change-related rain event was not a deflection, but nice try.

Got any actual evidence that the storm was related to climate change? Any at all?

There's some evidence that warmer ocean temperatures contributed at least 10% to the total rainfall but probably more.
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/harvey-global-warming.pdf

I guess I should have been more explicit...that is how it is when you talk to dumbed down Americans.....Let me rephrase...Got any actual evidence that the storm was related to man made climate change....Any at all?

 

[skookerasbil]

You made a deflection

Posting images of a climate change-related rain event was not a deflection, but nice try.

Got any actual evidence that the storm was related to climate change? Any at all?

There's some evidence that warmer ocean temperatures contributed at least 10% to the total rainfall but probably more.
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/harvey-global-warming.pdf

I guess I should have been more explicit...that is how it is when you talk to dumbed down Americans.....Let me rephrase...Got any actual evidence that the storm was related to man made climate change....Any at all?

Forget it...Angelo one of those real deep matrix guys. Another zombie who tends to the hysterical so PC conformity becomes the comfy/cozy zone.

But we are up against it Tom....this new generation stuck on social media like a baby to a mothers tit. A bit daunting....the lack of curiosity and attendant apathy on seeking information. A new breed of sheep. Sadly, my two kids gonna have to navigate in this minefield of fakery.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Do you know the difference between a survey and a poll?

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[133] This study was criticised by Richard Tol.[140]

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[141] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[143]

In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[144]

This is the scientific consensus that our president and his political party choose to reject out of hand.

Consensus vs Fact? Hmmm.....Let me think...I choose FACT. That when money is given in research those who are researching will make what ever is necessary to keep those funds coming.

Scientist Confesses: "Global Warming a $22 Billion Scam"

This document, you soon find out, contains damning evidence that a network of politicians, corporations, and scientists have conspired together to promote the fear of “global warming” . . . despite evidence clearly stating no such “global warming” exists.
The motive: $22 billion per year.
To be clear . . . that’s $22 billion of taxpayers’ money . . . the amount that our government pays to stop the “global warming” epidemic.

If you want to stop global warming and save the planet, why are you still using your computer and driving around in a car? Why are your lights on and cooking food to consume so you will FART thus putting more CO2 into the air? You are a stupid ******* hypocrite, who is seeking attention like a spoiled little girl.

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing...........hey.......message to the AGW nutters...........

U'll lOse!!

https://www.france24.com/en/20190316-looting-clashes-mark-most-violent-day-yellow-vest-protests-months

 

[the other mike]

Forget it...Angelo one of those real deep matrix guys..

 

[the other mike]

..that is how it is when you talk to dumbed down Americans...

Like yourself ?
It's what you get when you ask stupid questions.

 

[the other mike]

Lobbying Spending Database Oil & Gas, 2018 | OpenSecrets
Campaign Contributions from this industry

Exxon Mobil $11,150,000
Koch Industries $9,990,000
Chevron Corp $9,600,000
Royal Dutch Shell $8,950,000
American Petroleum Institute $6,970,000
Occidental Petroleum $6,597,424
BP $5,230,000
Marathon Petroleum $4,964,995
Phillips 66 $3,790,000
American Fuel & Petrochem Manufacturers $3,429,036
ConocoPhillips $3,080,000
Enbridge Inc $2,130,000
Noble Energy $2,070,000
Anadarko Petroleum $1,980,000
PDVSA $1,960,000
Valero Energy $1,800,000
Tellurian Inc $1,750,000
Nord Stream 2 AG $1,620,000
Independent Petroleum Assn of America $1,443,144
Williams Companies $1,320,000
Interstate Natural Gas Assn of America $1,300,000
Cheniere Energy $1,240,000
Equinor $1,210,000
American Gas Assn $1,010,000
Energy Transfer Equity $995,000
TransCanada Corp $920,000
Devon Energy $900,000
QEP Resources $860,000
Hess Corp $800,000
Murphy Oil $780,000
HollyFrontier Corp $740,000
EnCana Corp $720,000
PBF Energy $670,000
Chesapeake Energy $660,000
National Propane Gas Assn $660,000
WPX Energy $630,000
Domestic Petroleum Council $590,000
PetroGov LLC $470,000
CNX Resrouces $455,000
Petroleum Marketers Assn $440,000
Plains All American Pipeline $435,000
Gulf Energy Alliance $410,000
Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers $400,000
National Fuel Gas Corp $390,000
Magellan Midstream Partners $385,000
Delek Group $380,000
Sinclair Oil $380,000
Denbury Resources $360,000
Golden Pass Products $360,000
G2 LNG LLC $350,000
Arctic Slope Native Assn $340,000
Enterprise Products Partners $320,000
Musket Corp $320,000
PennEast Pipeline $310,000
Stars Group $300,000
EQT Corp $295,000
Natural Gas Supply Assn $270,000
Pilot Corp $260,000
Paradigm Pipeline $260,000
Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas $250,000
Marathon Oil $245,000
Buckeye Partners $240,000
CONSOL Energy $230,000
Frontera Resources $230,000
Kinder Morgan Inc $230,000
Otis Eastern Service $230,000
Philadelphia Energy Solutions $220,000
Gas Technology Institute $220,000
Colonial Pipeline $220,000
Concho Resources $210,000
Aspect Energy $210,000
Ergon Inc $210,000
National Assn of Truck Stop Operators $210,000
Bass Enterprises Production $200,000
Cook Inlet Assn $200,000
VNG Co $200,000
Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline $190,000
Loves Travel Stops & Country Stores $190,000
New Mexico Oil & Gas Assn $180,000
GPA Midstream Assn $180,000
US Oil & Gas Assn $178,894
Wintershall Holding $170,000
OMV AG $170,000
Hunt Companies $170,000
Kolmar Group $160,000
Lucas Oil $160,000
KP Kauffman Co $160,000
Oceaneering Intl $160,000
Pioneer Natural Resources $160,000
Excelerate Energy $160,000
Freeport LNG Development $160,000
Western Energy Alliance $160,000
Fairfield Geotechnologies $150,000
Enable Midstream Partners $150,000
Eagle LNG $150,000
Countrymark Cooperative $150,000
New England Fuel Institute $150,000
Mack Energy $150,000
US Oil $145,000
Tanana Chiefs Conference $140,000
Yuhuang Chemical $140,000
National Ocean Industries Assn $140,000
Offshore Marine Service Assn $140,000
Industrial Safety Training Council $130,000
Washington Gas Light Co $121,050
Nustar Energy $120,000
Neste $120,000
Neste Corp $120,000
New Jersey Resources Corp $120,000
NextDecade Corp $120,000
Canadian Assn of Petroleum Producers $120,000
Algeco Scotsman $120,000
G2X Energy $120,000
Atmos Energy $110,000
Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Assn $110,000
Hornbeck Offshore Services $110,000
Kern Oil & Refining Co $110,000
Veresen Inc $110,000
Halliburton Co $100,000
Association of Oil Pipe Lines $97,456
In Situ Oil Sands Alliance $95,000
Range Resources $92,200
Magnolia LNG $90,000
ARETI Group $90,000
Apache Corp $90,000
Bristol Bay Native Assn $90,000
Boardwalkd Pipelines $80,000
Enifit American Oil $80,000
Memorial Resource Development $80,000
Newfield Exploration Co $80,000
Repsol SA $80,000
Taylor Energy Co $80,000
Dragon Products $75,000
Hilcorp Alaska $60,000
National Oilheat Research Alliance $60,000
Weatherford International $60,000
Western Exploration $60,000
Propane People $50,000
American Ethane $50,000
Crescent Point Energy US $50,000
American Pipeline Contractors Assn $45,000
Tellus Operating Group $45,000
Harvey Gulf International Marine $40,000
Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition $40,000
McDermott International $40,000
Iroquois Gas Transmission System $40,000
Domestic Energy Producers Alliance $36,000
Argus Media $32,000
American Public Gas Assn $30,000
Colonial Group $30,000
Jordan Cove Energy Project $30,000
New Jersey Natural Gas $30,000
Texas Resource Partners $30,000
SG Interests $20,000
National Oilwell Varco $20,000
ONEOK Inc $15,000
Alliance Pipeline $15,000
NGL Energy Partners $10,000
Lake Charles Methanol $10,000
Vinmar International $10,000
Dominion Resources $5,000

 

[Cellblock2429]

Lobbying Spending Database Oil & Gas, 2018 | OpenSecrets
Campaign Contributions from this industry

Exxon Mobil $11,150,000
Koch Industries $9,990,000
Chevron Corp $9,600,000
Royal Dutch Shell $8,950,000
American Petroleum Institute $6,970,000
Occidental Petroleum $6,597,424
BP $5,230,000
Marathon Petroleum $4,964,995
Phillips 66 $3,790,000
American Fuel & Petrochem Manufacturers $3,429,036
ConocoPhillips $3,080,000
Enbridge Inc $2,130,000
Noble Energy $2,070,000
Anadarko Petroleum $1,980,000
PDVSA $1,960,000
Valero Energy $1,800,000
Tellurian Inc $1,750,000
Nord Stream 2 AG $1,620,000
Independent Petroleum Assn of America $1,443,144
Williams Companies $1,320,000
Interstate Natural Gas Assn of America $1,300,000
Cheniere Energy $1,240,000
Equinor $1,210,000
American Gas Assn $1,010,000
Energy Transfer Equity $995,000
TransCanada Corp $920,000
Devon Energy $900,000
QEP Resources $860,000
Hess Corp $800,000
Murphy Oil $780,000
HollyFrontier Corp $740,000
EnCana Corp $720,000
PBF Energy $670,000
Chesapeake Energy $660,000
National Propane Gas Assn $660,000
WPX Energy $630,000
Domestic Petroleum Council $590,000
PetroGov LLC $470,000
CNX Resrouces $455,000
Petroleum Marketers Assn $440,000
Plains All American Pipeline $435,000
Gulf Energy Alliance $410,000
Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers $400,000
National Fuel Gas Corp $390,000
Magellan Midstream Partners $385,000
Delek Group $380,000
Sinclair Oil $380,000
Denbury Resources $360,000
Golden Pass Products $360,000
G2 LNG LLC $350,000
Arctic Slope Native Assn $340,000
Enterprise Products Partners $320,000
Musket Corp $320,000
PennEast Pipeline $310,000
Stars Group $300,000
EQT Corp $295,000
Natural Gas Supply Assn $270,000
Pilot Corp $260,000
Paradigm Pipeline $260,000
Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas $250,000
Marathon Oil $245,000
Buckeye Partners $240,000
CONSOL Energy $230,000
Frontera Resources $230,000
Kinder Morgan Inc $230,000
Otis Eastern Service $230,000
Philadelphia Energy Solutions $220,000
Gas Technology Institute $220,000
Colonial Pipeline $220,000
Concho Resources $210,000
Aspect Energy $210,000
Ergon Inc $210,000
National Assn of Truck Stop Operators $210,000
Bass Enterprises Production $200,000
Cook Inlet Assn $200,000
VNG Co $200,000
Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline $190,000
Loves Travel Stops & Country Stores $190,000
New Mexico Oil & Gas Assn $180,000
GPA Midstream Assn $180,000
US Oil & Gas Assn $178,894
Wintershall Holding $170,000
OMV AG $170,000
Hunt Companies $170,000
Kolmar Group $160,000
Lucas Oil $160,000
KP Kauffman Co $160,000
Oceaneering Intl $160,000
Pioneer Natural Resources $160,000
Excelerate Energy $160,000
Freeport LNG Development $160,000
Western Energy Alliance $160,000
Fairfield Geotechnologies $150,000
Enable Midstream Partners $150,000
Eagle LNG $150,000
Countrymark Cooperative $150,000
New England Fuel Institute $150,000
Mack Energy $150,000
US Oil $145,000
Tanana Chiefs Conference $140,000
Yuhuang Chemical $140,000
National Ocean Industries Assn $140,000
Offshore Marine Service Assn $140,000
Industrial Safety Training Council $130,000
Washington Gas Light Co $121,050
Nustar Energy $120,000
Neste $120,000
Neste Corp $120,000
New Jersey Resources Corp $120,000
NextDecade Corp $120,000
Canadian Assn of Petroleum Producers $120,000
Algeco Scotsman $120,000
G2X Energy $120,000
Atmos Energy $110,000
Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Assn $110,000
Hornbeck Offshore Services $110,000
Kern Oil & Refining Co $110,000
Veresen Inc $110,000
Halliburton Co $100,000
Association of Oil Pipe Lines $97,456
In Situ Oil Sands Alliance $95,000
Range Resources $92,200
Magnolia LNG $90,000
ARETI Group $90,000
Apache Corp $90,000
Bristol Bay Native Assn $90,000
Boardwalkd Pipelines $80,000
Enifit American Oil $80,000
Memorial Resource Development $80,000
Newfield Exploration Co $80,000
Repsol SA $80,000
Taylor Energy Co $80,000
Dragon Products $75,000
Hilcorp Alaska $60,000
National Oilheat Research Alliance $60,000
Weatherford International $60,000
Western Exploration $60,000
Propane People $50,000
American Ethane $50,000
Crescent Point Energy US $50,000
American Pipeline Contractors Assn $45,000
Tellus Operating Group $45,000
Harvey Gulf International Marine $40,000
Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition $40,000
McDermott International $40,000
Iroquois Gas Transmission System $40,000
Domestic Energy Producers Alliance $36,000
Argus Media $32,000
American Public Gas Assn $30,000
Colonial Group $30,000
Jordan Cove Energy Project $30,000
New Jersey Natural Gas $30,000
Texas Resource Partners $30,000
SG Interests $20,000
National Oilwell Varco $20,000
ONEOK Inc $15,000
Alliance Pipeline $15,000
NGL Energy Partners $10,000
Lake Charles Methanol $10,000
Vinmar International $10,000
Dominion Resources $5,000

/——/ What’s your point?