Subscribe: DeSmogBlog - Ross Mckitrick
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
change  climate change  climate  fraser institute  fraser  global warming  global  institute  oil  report  science  warming   
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: DeSmogBlog - Ross Mckitrick

Ross Mckitrick


Did Lennart Bengtsson Know Global Warming Policy Foundation And Heartland Institute?

Tue, 20 May 2014 19:09:46 +0000

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has recently gotten worldwide publicity. It proudly announced that well-published climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson had joined its Academic Advisory Council (AAC), finally adding someone with scientific credibilty.  A week later, he quit, and affairs went downhill, as per The Guardian, Huffpost, DeSmogBlog and many others.  Of course, the usual denial blogs and publications proclaimed awful behavior on the part of climate scientists. Perhaps Dr. Bengtsson did not know that GWPF was the nearest UK equivalent to the Heartland Institute and the two were quite closely coupled. FOIA Facts 5 - Finds Friends Of GWPF analyzed AAC Chairman David Henderson's email to a list that included 19 Heartland experts, speakers, employees or consultants. Then, another eight Heartland-related people were GWPF or AAC members, including Henderson himself.  The full To: list was quite instructive. Two years after the infamous Heartland billboard and other exposures of Heartland activities, seven GWPF AAC members are still Heartland Experts:Robert Carter, Freeman Dyson, Indur Goklany, Richard Lindzen, Ross McKitrick, Ian Plimer, Nir Shaviv.  Both Heartland and GWPF are tax-exempt political “charities” that have little to do with science except to attack it.  Perhaps Dr. Bengtsson has now learned that one is known by the company they keep and a credible scientist had fallen into very bad company.  Hopefully he has indeed learned. UPDATE 08/30/14: For more detail, see discussion at Ha ha: Lennart Bengtsson leaves advisory board of GWPF (Stoat), L'Affaire Bengtsson (Rabett Run) and  Wikipedia.  When a scientist starts doing silly things and lending his name to an anti-science group, calling colleague's displeasure McCarthysim shows ignorance of the term's meaning. Tags: lenanrt bengtsoon; gwpf;heartland[...]

Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:08:47 +0000

Modern anti-science was created by the tobacco industry in the 1950s and then used against climate science, often by the same well-experienced think tanks and individuals.  Tobacco anti-science is strangely entangled with climate anti-science, as the attached report shows in detail involving Fred Singer's SEPP, Joseph Bast's Heartland, and more. (Fakery 2  10/25/12 updates this post with more data.) S. Fred Singer is President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), but has done almost all the work himself for 20 years., including help for tobacco in the early 1990s. Research for Weird Science sent me on a  trek through his and other IRS Form 990s, which unearthed many curiosities of strange governance, fakery and funny finances, all tax-free. Singer claimed Frederick Seitz as Chairman for two years after his demise and 20 years after a Philip Morris staffer had written in 1989: “Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” SEPP’s finances were curious.  SEPP paid no salaries, even for Singer’s 60-hour workweeks.  Money flowed oddly.  Asset trades often exceeded normal income and they accumulated to $1.5M, tax-free.   Then one money trail led to Heartland. Heartland Institute’s Joseph Bast staunchly defended “Joe Camel,” the infamous campaign to addict younger children.  Heartland got tobacco funding for many years, along with a Philip Morris Board member. Whitney Ball’s DONORS TRUST funded a major expansion of Heartland climate anti-science.  Singer collected old associates to help write “NonGovernmental International Panel on Climate Change“ (NIPCC) reports, filled with unsupported claims and long-refuted anti-science. He was helped by Craig Idso, of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CDCDGC), whose money flows also seem unusual.  Robert Ferguson’s Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) was a website and a  PO Box in a UPS store and he was actually a CSCDGC employee. Under Jay Lehr and James Taylor, anti-science permeated Heartland’s Environment and Climate News (E&CN) sent mostly to elected officials.  Heartland incessantly touted its access and influence with such officials, but its tax forms claimed no lobbying.  It ran “fake science” conferences, paying for government staff attendance.  It sent money to foreign non-charity advocacy groups, sent anti-science handbooks to school boards and urged parents to complain.  It has been criticized in Nature and Science. Free speech allows people to express opinions, even lie about facts, but tax-free operation is a revocable privilege.  Spreading factual untruths and confusion about smoking or climate science is neither research nor education in the public interest. Read the report, at least the first 21 pages, backed by nearly 200 of detailed backup. This report was scheduled to be published in a few days,  and by astonishing coincidence, just today we see Heartland Institute Exposed.  The report was done entirely from public sources, but today's new information is quite consistent and fills some holes.  However, the unnamed large Anonymous donor is now seen to be someone hiding behind DONORS TRUST, and some of the smaller ones dedicating funds appear in pp.57-59, with red itemizations. We also see some of the actual payments I had to infer. 03/11/12 CORRECTION:  p.58 omitted a DONORS CAPITAL item for 2008: “For media materials $100,000”, which should be added to various subtotals, making them consistent with the $4,610,000 reported on p.57, Fig. H.1.4.  H/T to Michael Fisher. 10/25/12 UPDATE: A major revision has been posted, with much more information on Barre Seid, DONORS TRUST and other funding issues. AttachmentSize fake.pdf4.99 MB Tags: SEPPSPPIheartlandidsothink tanksfakeryfakexpertsSingerBastCSCDGCFerguson[...]

Don't Be Fooled: Fossil Fools Fund Latest Climate Skeptic Petition

Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:41:11 +0000

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently published a flashy headline that reads, ’900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm’. The article links to a blog post on listing more than 900 papers which, according to the GWPF, refute “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.” The “900+ papers” list is supposed to somehow prove that a score of scientists reject the scientific consensus on climate change. One might be persuaded by the big numbers. We’re not. Oh, where to begin? First, a note of caution about the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It’s a UK group opposing climate change action. Sourcewatch’s digging reveals links to right-wing libertarian climate change deniers. According to the UK Charity Commission, GWPF’s mandate is to “advance the public understanding of global warming and of its possible consequences, and also of the measures taken or proposed to be taken in response to it”. Actually, they’re a heck of a lot more interested in sowing seeds of doubt than in disseminating knowledge. The GWPF’s director is the Heartland Institute’s* Benny Peiser, climate change denier extraordinaire. Other notable members include Canada’s Ross McKitrick of the Fraser Institute.    Curiously, the GWPF was launched just as the Climategate emails were released. An op-ed by Chairman Nigel Lawson announced the GWPF, predicted the (hopeful) failure of the Copenhagen climate talks, and called for an inquiry into the content of the stolen emails. Using a screen-scraping process to analyze the data on the “900+” list, the folks over at Carbon Brief dug up some pretty incriminating information. Turns out nine of the ten most cited authors on the list (representing 186 of the 938 papers) have links to ExonMobil-funded organizations. The tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-funded contributors. Anyone familiar with these kinds of lists (“More than 500 scientists dispute global warming” or “more Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”) knows that if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.  Many familiar climate skeptic names appear over and over again. Dr. Sherwood B Idso is the most cited author on the list, having authored or co-authored 67 of the papers. Idso is president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a think tank funded by ExxonMobil and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.  The second most cited is Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, a well-known climate sceptic who admits that around 40% of his funding comes from the oil industry. When you really crunch the numbers, all you really find is a small echochamber of the same individuals who pop up on every denier list and petition around. James W. Prall at the University of Toronto has put together a fantastic analysis of the names that appear on these lists, and shows how most of them share funding ties to the oil industry.  Now a note on the most cited journals on this list. Articles from trade journal Energy and Environment are cited 137 times on the list. Energy and Environment is edited by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and Benny Peiser. Numerous known climate skeptics sit on the editorial staff including Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, and Richard Lindzen.  The journal has become a go-to resource for policymakers and politicians who are skeptical of the scientific consensus of climate change.  Michael Ashley of the University of New South Wales has described it as “the climate sceptic’s journal of choice”. The Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge is considered a key resource for establishing the credentials and influence of key academic journals. It does not list Energy and Environment.   A further 24 papers come from the journal Climate Research which is perhaps best known for publishin[...]

Denial-a-palooza Round 4: 'International Conference on Climate Change' Groups Funded by Exxon, Koch Industries

Thu, 13 May 2010 19:15:56 +0000

In what has become an annual non-event, the Heartland Institute will gather the who’s-who of the global warming denial network together in Chicago this weekend for the fourth International Conference on Climate Change.  As in years past, the event is expected to receive very little mainstream media coverage.  The deniers like to think the reason is some liberal media conspiracy.  In reality, the lack of interest stems chiefly from the fact that this denial-a-palooza fest is dripping with oil money and represents a blatant industry effort to greenwash oil and coal while simultaneously attacking the credibility of climate scientists. Despite the lack of press interest, the show must go on.  After all, the Chicago meet-up will provide deniers and industry front groups a chance to coordinate their ongoing efforts to smear the reputation of the IPCC, and they can reminisce about the Climategate non-scandal like boys in the schoolyard kicking around a rusty old can. For insight into the underlying aim of the Chicago denier conference, let us take a look at the funding sources for the sponsoring organizations. Funding: 19 of the 65 sponsors (including Heartland itself) have received a total of over $40 million in funding since 1985 from ExxonMobil (funded 13 orgs), and/or Koch Industries family foundations (funded 10 orgs) and/or the Scaife family foundations (funded 10 orgs).  See below for a full funding break-down. ExxonMobil (1998-2008): $6,588,250 ($389,250 more than reported in 2009) Koch Foundations (1985-2008): $17,572,210 ($13,133,290 more than reported in 2009) Scaife Family Foundations (1985-2008): $16,352,000 ($20,516,640 less than reported in 2009*) Total Funding 1985-2008: $40,512,460 *The Heritage Foundation sponsored the 2009 conference and is notably absent from sponsoring the 2010 ICCC. Heritage has received $23,096,640 from Scaife, $2,417,000 from Koch and $565,000 from Exxon between 1998-2006. ExxonMobil has backed off funding many of the groups who have sponsored global warming denial, thanks in large measure to the relentless work of, a project of Greenpeace USA.  However, the funding gap has been filled by the private oil fortunes of the Koch and Scaife families, who continue to pump funds into the network of climate denial and “free market” groups. “These same anti-regulatory ‘free market’ organizations are hell-bent on keeping us addicted to dirty oil and coal.  They’ve pushed for more offshore drilling, fought improvements to fuel economy standards and stalled action on global warming through denial and deception,” says Kert Davies, Research Director of Greenpeace USA. According to the Media Transparency project, the Scaife Family of Foundations is “financed by the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune. At one time its largest single holding was stock in the Gulf Oil Corporation. [Scaife] became active in funding conservative causes in 1973, when Richard Mellon Scaife became chairman of the foundation.” The Koch foundations’ money comes from the profits generated by oil conglomerate Koch Industries, the “nation’s largest privately held energy company, with annual revenues of more than $25 billion. … Koch Industries is now the second largest family-owned business in the U.S., with annual sales of over $20 billion.” The Koch brothers, David and Charles, control the three family foundations that have “lavished tens of millions of dollars in the past decade on ‘free market’ advocacy institutions in and around Washington.” The Koch connections are the most interesting because of the lengths they go to attempt to deny their involvement.  DeSmogBlog asked a Koch spokesperson if they were involved in sponsoring the ICCC and received this reply: “In response to your question as to whether Koch is supporting the ICCC - no, Koch Industries and the Koch foundations are not supporting the International Conference on Climate Ch[...]

Squadron of Oil Industry Executives on Fraser Institute Board

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:45:26 +0000

Canada’s libertarian think-tank, the Fraser Institute, has a knack for providing excellent PR and advocacy services for the oil industry in Canada.  That might be because they practically are the oil industry.  Out of 47 directors, 9 can be clearly linked to the oil, gas and coal industries.  Since Canadian oil companies extract dirty tar sands, which have a much larger environmental impact and carbon footprint than run-of-the-mill dirty oil, the industry relies on top-notch spin to massage its image in the public eye.  Here are some of the oil celebrities riding Fraser’s anti-regulation bandwagon: William (Bill) Siebens founded Siebens Oil and Gas Ltd in the 1950s and is still at it.  His lifetime of extracting fossil fuels earned him a spot in the Canadian Petroleum Hall of Fame. Roger Phillips sits on the board of directors of Imperial Oil, Canada’s largest oil company.  Imperial is 70% owned by ExxonMobil and has a 25% stake in Syncrude Canada, the largest producer of oil from tar sands. John Dielwart is the president and CEO of Arc Energy Trusts, one of Canada’s largest conventional oil and gas royalty trusts. Paul Hill is the president and CEO of the Hill Companies.  According to his bio, “he is a past director of Canada Trust, North Canadian Oils Ltd.,, US Forest Industries, the Canadian Forces Liaison Committee and the Asia Pacific Foundation to name a few. He is a member of the World Presidents and Chief Executives Organizations.” Gwyn Morgan is a current director and former President and CEO of EnCana Corporation, one of North America’s largest natural gas producers.  Morgan has been described as one of the most powerful men in the oil patch and spent his lifetime building an oil empire in Alberta. Herbert Pinder, another current director of ARC Resources, also serves as director for “a number of private energy companies,” according to his ARC Energy Trusts bio. Also on Fraser’s board are Charles Barlow of gas exploration company Barlow Brothers Ltd;  R. Jack Pirie who is associated with private oil company Sabre Energy Ltd.; and John Hagg, CEO of tar sands extractor Northstar Energy. With a line-up like this, the lesser known Fraser Institute ranks right up there with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute and other right wing think tanks supported by dirty energy industries to fuel public doubt about climate change.  Fraser staffers are adept at cherry picking data to create the appearance of scientific research, and then using their PR resources to influence public opinion. According to the company’s annual report, the Fraser Institute received $120,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003-‘04.  Fraser Institute Foundation President Michael Walker said the funding paid for the work of researcher Kenneth Green, who served as chief scientist at Fraser Institute between 2002-2005.  Kenneth Green now resides at the American Enterprise Institute as one of its chief climate deniers in residence. Other Fraser misdeeds include targeting Canadian high school students and teachers with global warming misinformation, as Bill Miller wrote on Desmogblog in March of 2008.  Fraser designed a booklet for high schoolers allegedly aimed at “helping them understand the issue and make their own decisions about what actions are needed” on global warming.  “The manuscript was compiled by rookie scientists and retirees with strong ties to oil and gas pressure groups,” Miller wrote. Fraser is also a supporter of Canada’s leading climate skeptics.  Ross McKitrick is a senior scholar at Fraser, and is well known for his efforts teaming up with mining executive Steve McIntyre to attack climate science.  (The minor mistakes pointed out by McIntyre and McKitrick have been acknowledged and corrected by climate scientists, but their PR efforts continue unabated.) For a full list of the businesspeople represented on the board of the Fraser Institute, as [...]

Atlas Shrugs as Exxon Launches New Blitz of False Prophets

Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:37:18 +0000

An orchestrated campaign is being waged against climate change science to undermine public acceptance of man-made global warming, environment experts. Free-market, anti-climate change think-tanks such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in the US and the International Policy Network in the UK have received grants totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds from the multinational energy company ExxonMobil. Both organisations have funded international seminars pulling together climate change deniers from across the globe.

A Reading List for the Narrowminded

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:43:05 +0000

Amazon has apparently sent my copy of The Deniers, Lawrence Solomon's book version of his tiresome Denier series in the National Post, a review of which will follow when it arrives.But Amazon also followed up with a list of books they think might also interest me: a handsome reading list for anyone who is determined to remain delusional about global warming.Tops on the list is Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, a Heartland Institute favorite by the not-very-credible Fred Singer. Next up is Bjorn Lomborg's Cool It, a disingenuous argument that the money we are NOT spending to defend against climate change would be better spent helping poor people in Africa.Amazon offers Economic Facts and Fallacies, which the right-wingy Human Events praises for revealing a set of “economic facts” that are “all too often ignored by lazy politicians and a relentlessly Leftist media.” (For example, it's really no problem at all that women make less money than men and are poorly represented in management.) There is also Taken by Storm , Ross Mckitrick and Chris Essex's argument that climate change is just too darn complicated so we should ignore it at our leisure. And finally, there is Gusher of Lies, a book by Energy Tribune editor Robert Bryce, who tells us that energy dependence is a good thing, really.All of you Amazon shoppers have probably seen lists of books like this before: they are computer-generated advertising efforts reporting that people who bought The Deniers had also bought these other books. It is, on one hand, an apolitical marketing effort that could actually be quite helpful for people who are trying to identify other books (or CDs) that they might enjoy.On the other hand, the mechanism tends to herd people into like-minded groups, steering them to sources that reinforce their biases and preconceptions. Where a regular bookstore might send you to the “climate change” section, or even the “general science” section, Amazon leads you by the hand directly to the “climate change denial and weird right-wing political theory” section. As a result, people who count themselves extremely well-read on climate related issues (who have, say, read three of four books on the topic in the last year) can avoid reading a single word that challenges everything they wanted to believe when they set out.It's creepy - insulating and sort of anti-democratic.The interesting sidenote here was the music recommendations that accompanied Amazon's book pitches. Apparently, die-hard climate change deniers listen to Radiohead and, Robert Plant and Alison Krauss . Who knew? Tags: cool itpeak oilthomas sowellAmazon.comthe denierseconomic facts and fallaciestaken by stormgusher of liesrobert bryce[...]

NASA Chief Finds Support on Yet Another (Skeptics') Front

Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:57:28 +0000


NASA's top administrator, Michael Griffin, speaking on NPR radio made some refreshingly sensible comments about the present global warming scare,” said Robert Ferguson, Director of the Science and Public Policy Institute. “Many rationalist scientists agree with him, clearly demonstrating there is no scientific consensus on man-made, catastrophic global warming,” said Ferguson.

The article, which also quotes Pat Michaels, Tim Ball, Robert Carter and other longtime skeptics, omits Ferguson's e-address: The “FF” in this case stands for Frontiers of Freedom, a longtime ExxonMobil-funded haven for footsoldiers in the disinformation war.

McIntyre Unearths Fresh Climate Graph Outrage

Thu, 24 May 2007 22:21:10 +0000


Steve McIntyre, who with Ross McKitrick has been the author of the long-running hockey stick controversy, has replotted all of the climate reconstructions recently reported in New Scientist magazine and has discovered - well, he seems to have discovered a whole equipment bag full of hockey sticks (see illustration).

Under McIntrye's careful analysis, some of the climate reconstructions don't extend back fully to 1,000 years and some peter out more recently for lack data. And all have been recalibrated to spend a bit more time above zero. But taken individually or together, they all seem to suggest exactly what the much-debated Mann hockey stick suggested, lo those many Congressional hearings ago: that we are currently enjoying (or enduring) the hottest period on earth in the last 1,000 years.

Thanks, Steve, for clearing that up.

Roy Spencer

Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:46:05 +0000

Roy W. Spencer Credentials Ph.D., M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1980, 1981). [1] B.S., atmospheric sciences, University of Michigan (1978)  [1] Background Roy W. Spencer is a research scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. He operates his own blog on global warming where he describes himself as a “climatologist, author, [and] former NASA scientist.” [1] Spencer is an advisor to the Cornwall Alliance, formerly the Interfaith Steward Alliance (ISA), an evangelical Christian group that claims environmentalism is “one of the greatest threats to society and the church today.” He has done work with other religious groups denying climate change including the Evangelical Climate Initiative. [2], [3], [4] According to “Global Warming 101,” a section of Spencer's website, “the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming in the last 100 years.” [5] Stance on Climate Change December 8, 2016 “Global warming is not something that we should be terribly worried about from a policy perspective, which is my view.” [80] September, 2008 “There's probably a natural reason for global warming […] We will look back on it as a gigantic false alarm […] The Earth isn't that sensitive to how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere. I think we need to consider the possibility that more carbon dioxide is better than less.” [6] Key Quotes November 30, 2017 Speaking at the “At the Crossroads IV: Energy & Climate Policy Summit,” co-hosted by The Heritage Foundation and Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), Spencer claimed uncertainty surrounding climate science: [95] “I wish I could tell you that we know things for sure, but in science we don’t know anything for sure. I tell people, science isn’t truth it’s just our idea of how things should work, and usually scientists are wrong.” December 8, 2016 “Global warming is not something that anybody will ever feel in their lifetime.” [80] “I am one of the skeptics who believes that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, theoretically, should cause some warming. […] I would expect slow warming to continue in the future–but I wouldn’t bet money on it.” [80] “I’m somewhat of a rocket scientist. I can tell you, predicting climate change isn’t rocket science. It’s way harder than that. [80] 2016 “Besides, if global warming is settled science, like gravity or the Earth not being flat, why isn’t the agreement 100 percent? And since when is science settled by a survey or a poll? The hallmark of a good scientific theory is its ability to make good predictions.” “From what we’ve seen, global warming theory is definitely lacking in this regard.” [7]  2015 “We have no idea what's natural and what's man made. […] There is no fingerprint of human-caused warming.” [8] 2014 “All scientists should be skeptics. The reason why is that, even with the best of scientific measurements, we can come up with all kinds of explanations of what those measurements mean in terms of cause and effect, and yet most of those explanations are wrong. It's really easy to be wrong in science … it's really hard to be right.” [9] 2011 “Twice I have testified in congress that unbiased funding on the subject of the causes of warming would be much closer to a reality if 50% of that money was devoted to finding natural reasons for climate change.” [10] May, 2007 “Politicians and some of the scientists like to say that there's a consensus now on global warming or the science has been settled, but you have to ask them, what is there a consensus on? Because it really makes a difference. What are you talking about? The only consensus I`m aware of is that it's warmed in t[...]

Ross McKitrick

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:39:48 +0000

Ross McKitrick Credentials  Ph.D., Economics, University of British Columbia, (1996). [1] M.A., Economics, University of British Columbia, (1990). [1] B.A. (Hons) , Economics, Queen's University, (1988). [1] Background Ross McKitrick is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph. McKitrick is also a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Vancouver, British Columbia. [2] According to Ross McKitrick's profile at the Fraser Institute, he holds a BA in economics from Queen's University, and an MA and Ph.D. in economics from the University of British Columbia. He was appointed Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph in 1996 and Associate Professor in 2000. McKitrick's areas of specialization include environmental economics and policy analysis. His current research areas include “empirical modeling of the relationship between economic growth and pollution emissions; the impact of economic activity on the measurement of surface temperatures; and the climate change policy debate.” [3] McKitrick co-authored the 2002 book Taken By Storm (website now defunct) with fellow climate skeptic Christopher Essex. According to the book's description, the “assumption that we know what is happening and how to control it” regarding climate change is false. The revised version was released in 2008. [4] Stance on Climate Change Ross McKitrick is an endorser of the Cornwall Alliance's “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,” which states: [5] “We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.” [6] Key Quotes June, 2016 “Calculations behind the social cost of carbon need to reflect empirical evidence about low climate sensitivity, and when this is done, the numbers appear to be much lower than those currently in use.” [7] May, 2015 “The phony claim of 97 per cent consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence.” [8] April, 2012 “I abhor Earth Hour. Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance in the 20th century depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity.” [9] February, 2012 “The bottom line for Canada is that Kyoto will precipitate a recession that will cause a permanent reduction in employment, income and the size of our economy. And if global warming is going to happen Kyoto will do nothing whatsoever to prevent it or even slow it down. Why are we still considering it?” [10] Key Deeds November 9, 2017 McKitrick was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's “America First Energy Conference” at the Marriott Hotel in Houston, Texas. [52] allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="300" src="" width="500"> See PDF and PowerPoint of presentation. The event description read as follows: [49] “At the America First Energy Conference, we plan to examine—one year and one day after Trump’s shocking Election Day victory—the following: “Where does Trump’s America First Energy Plan stand? “How much progress has been made in implementing it, and what remains to be done? “What scientific and economic evidence is there that the plan is putting the nation on the right path for economic growth, environmental protection, or both?” [49] In a fundraising letter obtained by DeSmog, Fred Palmer had promoted the event as having the goal to “revi[...]

DeSmog Leaks Advance Copy of Think Tank's IPCC Attack

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:00:00 +0000

UPDATED: with details of the Fraser Institute's planned press conferenceThe Fraser Institute will release their report in London on Feb.5. Here are the details for our UK friends who might be interested in attending:Date: February 5, 2007Time: 10am (London time)Location: The Atrium Restaurant (across from the Houses of Parliament), Four Millbank, Westminster UPDATE: I've just uploaded a new version of the briefing note, without hyperlinks for those who want to print off a copy. Titled “print version.” (KG)Fraser Institute “Analysis” of IPCC Report Out of Date, Oil-Soaked and IncorrectA Canadian think tank’s “independent” analysis of the upcoming IPCC report is based on out-of-date information and is specifically misleading about the nature of the scientific summary that it presumes to criticize, President James Hoggan said Wednesday. The Fraser Institute had planned to release their report Feb.5, at a press conference in the United Kingdom. The Fraser Institute, a right-wing think tank that has recently received annual grants from oil-giant ExxonMobil, promised an independent summary of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Institute claimed that the IPCC’s own summary is a political document “neither written by nor reviewed by the scientific community,” while the Fraser Institute version was “prepared by qualified experts in fields related to climate science.”In fact, the IPCC summary was written and reviewed by some of the most senior climate scientists in the world, without political or bureaucratic input . And the Fraser Institute’s “scientific” staff – which is led by an economist – includes a group of junior or retired scientists, most of whom have direct connections to energy industry lobby groups (see attached briefing note).Dr. Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis and a lead IPCC author, called the Independent Summary “highly ideological.” While the Fraser Institute summary says, “There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway,” Weaver counters: “The IPCC report presents 1,600 pages of compelling evidence, that’s the whole point.”Weaver also criticized the Fraser Institute’s contention that climate change may not be happening or that if it is happening, it may be “a good or bad thing.”Finally, Weaver pointed out that the whole Fraser Institute analysis is based on a document that is almost a year out of date. “I was most surprised that this analysis was written based on our second draft” (released in Spring 2006), said Weaver. “We incorporated changes in response to well over 1,000 reviewrs' comments before preparing a final draft last fall.” A complete copy of the Fraser Institute report is attached below. AttachmentSize draft fraser institute report IPCC small.pdf1.22 MB DeSmogBlog note on the fraser institute.pdf197.58 KB Fraser Inst Press Release.pdf33.97 KB Print version DeSmog fraser institute briefing note.pdf177.49 KB ONE PAGE VERSION Fraser Inst Press Release.pdf37.13 KB Tags: ross mckitrickandrew weaverFraser InstituteExxonMobilIPCCintergovernmental panel on climate change[...]

Exxon-backed Fraser Institute readies attack on IPCC

Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:40:05 +0000


The Fraser Institute, which has received $120,000 from ExxonMobil over the last three years, has issued a media advisory promising to release “an independent summary of the latest United Nations (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report on climate” on February 5, 2007.

The FI advisory derides the IPCC report as “a brief document produced through negotiation by government bureaucrats. It is neither written by nor reviewed by the scientific community and has been criticized for its promotional tone and failure to adequately communicate the complexity and uncertainty of the underlying science around climate change.”

The Fraser Institute report's lead author is Canadian economist Dr. Ross McKitrick, best known for his attack on the now-famous “hockey stick ” graph by Michael Mann, et al.

The DeSmogBlog will follow later in the day with more background on McKitrick and Fraser Institute's other “climate experts” involved in this anti-IPCC report.

Is ExxonMobil Cultivating a Religious Voice, as Well?

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:42:46 +0000

Thanks to frequent correspondent Wacki for finding this story, pointing out the ExxonMobil connection to the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA) petition demanding INaction on climate change.

You might remember the petition being launched in July, a response to the surprising call to action that the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) launched  in February.

The ISA, however, appears now to be more than pure-hearted evangelical communion. EthicsDaily found a disturbing number of ISA signatories with a direct link to ExxonMobil, from organizations like the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, which took $50,000 from Exxon last year, to usual suspects like Fred L. Smith Jr., whose Competitive Enterprise Institute was the happy recipient of 270,000 Exxon dollars in 2005.

Reading further into the ISA document also reveals other not-very-surprising participants. For example, there is the famous Canadian evangelical (not!), Ross McKitrick. And there are “non-evangelicals with special expertise in climatology or related sciences,” including:  Australian geologist Bob Carter; Friends of Science advisor Madhav Khandekar; the godfather of climate change denial Richard Lindzen; and, of course, our old friend Dr. S. Fred Singer.

It being difficult to keep track of these conscientious objectors and to monitor their relations to foundations or companies with an interest in promoting a fossil fuel future, we would be delighted if anyone recognizes any other names on this list that belong, more appropriately, on a list of oil industry apologists or professional contrarians.

NRC Exonerates "Hockey Stick" Graph, Ending "Mann-Hunt" by Two Canadian Skeptics

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:35:32 +0000

Mann's “hockey stick” graph was the subject of an attack by Stephen McIntyre, a statistician and part-time consultant in Toronto to minerals industries, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario.  The attack was the subject of a front page story in the Wall Street Journal. Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate The New York Times, June 22, 2006 WASHINGTON, June 22 — A controversial paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation's pre-eminent scientific body.The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work “have been underestimated,” and it particularly challenged the authors' conclusion that the decade of the 1990's was probably the warmest in a millennium.  But in a 155-page report, the 12-member panel convened by the National Academies said “an array of evidence” supported the main thrust of the paper. Disputes over details, it said, reflected the normal intellectual clash that takes place as science tests new approaches to old questions.The study, led by Michael E. Mann, a climatologist now at Pennsylvania State University, was the first to estimate widespread climate trends by stitching together a grab bag of evidence, including variations in ancient tree rings and temperatures measured in deep holes in the earth. It has been repeatedly attacked by Republican lawmakers and some business-financed groups as built on cherry-picked data meant to create an alarming view of recent warming and play down past natural warm periods. At a news conference at the headquarters of the National Academies, several members of the panel reviewing the study said they saw no sign that its authors had intentionally chosen data sets or methods to get a desired result. “I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation,” said one member, Peter Bloomfield, a statistics professor at North Carolina State University. He added that his impression was the study was “an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure.”More broadly, the panel examined other recent research comparing the pronounced warming trend over the last several decades with temperature shifts over the last 2,000 years. It expressed high confidence that warming over the last 25 years exceeded any peaks since 1600. And in a news conference here today, three panelists said the current warming was probably, but not certainly, beyond any peaks since the year 900.The experts said there was no reliable way to make estimates for surface-temperature trends in the first millennium A.D.In the report, the panel stressed that the significant remaining uncertainties about climate patterns over the last 2,000 years did not weaken the scientific case that the current warming trend was caused mainly by people, through the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  “Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence,” the report said. The 1999 paper is part of a growing body of work trying to pull together widely disparate clues of climate conditions before the age of weather instruments. The paper includes a graph of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere that gained the nickname “hockey stick” because of its vivid depiction of a long period with little temperature variation for nearly 1,000 years, followed by a shar[...]