Does anyone still believe in 'global warming'? - The $10 Trillion Climate Fraud

Cap-And-Trade: While senators froth over Goldman Sachs and derivatives, a climate trading scheme being run out of the Chicago Climate Exchange would make Bernie Madoff blush. Its trail leads to the White House. Lost in the recent headlines was Al Gore's appearance in Denver at the annual meeting of the Council of Foundations, an association of the nation's philanthropic leaders. "Time's running out (on climate change)," Gore told them. "We have to get our act together. You have a unique role in getting our act together."

Gore was right that foundations will play a key role in keeping the climate scam alive as evidence of outright climate fraud grows, just as they were critical in the beginning when the Joyce Foundation in 2000 and 2001 provided the seed money to start the Chicago Climate Exchange. It started trading in 2003, and what it trades is, essentially, air. More specifically perhaps, hot air. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) advertises itself as "North America's only cap-and-trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide." Barack Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002 when the CCX startup grants were issued. As president, pushing cap-and-trade is one of his highest priorities. Now isn't that special?

Few Americans have heard of either entity. The Joyce Foundation was originally the financial nest egg of a widow whose family had made millions in the now out-of-favor lumber industry.

After her death, the foundation was run by philanthropists who increasingly dedicated their giving to liberal causes, including gun control, environmentalism and school changes.

Currently, CCX members agree to a voluntary but legally binding agreement to regulate greenhouse gases.

Thanks to Fox News' Glenn Beck, we have learned a lot about CCX, not the least of which is that its founder, Richard Sandor, says he knew Obama well back in the day when the Joyce Foundation awarded money to the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University, where Sandor was a research professor.

Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

Sandor estimates that climate trading could be "a $10 trillion dollar market." It could very well be, if cap-and-trade measures like Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer are signed into law, making energy prices skyrocket, and as companies buy and sell permits to emit those six "greenhouse" gases.
So lucrative does this market appear, it attracted the attention of London-based Generation Investment Management, which purchased a stake in CCX and is now the fifth-largest shareholder.

As we noted last year, Gore is co-founder of Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offsets of dubious value that let rich polluters continue to pollute with a clear conscience.

Other founders include former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood, as well as Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, also of Goldman Sachs. In 2006, CCX received a big boost when another investor bought a 10% stake on the prospect of making a great deal of money for itself. That investor was Goldman Sachs, now under the gun for selling financial instruments it knew were doomed to fail.

The actual mechanism for trading on the exchange was purchased and patented by none other than Franklin Raines, who was CEO of Fannie Mae at the time. Raines profited handsomely to the tune of some $90 million by buying and bundling bad mortgages that led to the collapse of the American economy. His interest in climate trading is curious until one realizes cap-and-trade would make housing costlier as well.

Amazingly, none of these facts came up at Senate hearings on Goldman Sachs' activities, which may be nothing more than Ross Perot's famous "gorilla dust," meant to distract us from the real issues.

The climate trading scheme being stitched together here will do more damage than Goldman Sachs, AIG and Fannie Mae combined. But it will bring power and money to its architects.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

Exxon Secret Funding of Global Warming Junk Scientists

Finally.   After years of denying its role in the campaign of climate denial, Exxon has revealed a dirty secret, that it has and likely still is DIRECTLY funding junk scientists.

ExxonSecrets is a Greenpeace research project highlighting the more than a decade-long campaign by Exxon-funded front groups - and the scientists they work with - to deny the urgency of the scientific consensus on global warming and delay action to fix the problem.

The database compiles Exxon Foundation and corporate funding to a series of institutions who have worked to undermine solutions to global warming and climate change. It details the working relationships of individuals associated with these organizations and their global warming quotes and deeds.

Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

ExxonSecrets was born out of a need to easily explain the complex web of organizations, pundits, lobbyists and skeptic scientists running Exxon’s campaign to deny and undermine the scientific evidence on global warming.  Greenpeace has followed been following the anti-Kyoto crowd since the early 1990’s. The same scientists and spokespeople kept popping up, along with the same organizations who were either backing, employing or celebrating the skeptic voices.

We found the easiest way to show the links between all the groups and individuals was to do it graphically.  Thus we developed and launched the ExxonSecrets map tool in 2004.  The code was developed by Josh On (of They Rule.net), the graphics by Amy Balkin.  The project leaders at Greenpeace were Kert Davies and Cindy Baxter.

While the rest of the world is now accepting climate change and moving on the issue, especially in the business sector, ExxonMobil continues to fund the think tanks and organizations who are running a decades-long campaign denying the consensus of urgency from climate scientists and attacking policies to abate global warming.  A major shift by ExxonMobil would send strong signals throughout the business world.  While Exxon isn’t the only company funding these organizations, it has played a leading role in several key anti-environmental lobby groups, including the Global Climate Coalition and the American Petroleum Institute.  

Exxon might “take climate change seriously” but the reality is that it has been spearheading this campaign to undermine action on climate change for many many years.   The company has recently recognized that its longstanding position on global warming has become unpalatable with increasing public awareness and political momentum on climate change, so it has shifted its rhetoric and revised its choice of words around the issue.  
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

Dirty little Exxon secret

The ExxonMobil 2008 Corporate Citizenship Report and Worldwide Giving Report were just released by the company ahead of their Annual General Meeting in Dallas tomorrow (May 27th) where the company is once again under significant pressure from Shareholder Activists.

The Worldwide Giving Reports are a key part of the data from which we have derived the ExxonSecrets funding linkages for the past decade.  Through the years, most ExxonMobil Foundation and corporate grants (the ones they report to the IRS anyway) have gone to think-tanks, organizations who have in turn propped up the small army of denial scientists, amplified their voices and injected them into the media and policy arenas.

Thanks to Exxon's revealing this little secret, we now have a direct link between the Exxon black bag o' cash and two scientists who have made their careers as global warming deniers.

The Observatory is the research arm of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) which has little to do with either the Smithsonian or Harvard at this point, other than in name (founded as a joint venture in 1973).  In past episodes, Smithsonian has distanced itself from Baliunas, who discredits their name.

The Observatory has produced some pretty useful publications over time like the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Star Catalog, originally published in 1966 by Fred L. Whipple.  But somewhere along the line they let in the riff raff...

Sally Baliunas built her denial career downplaying the significance of the destruction of the ozone layer, publishing a report entitled "The Ozone Crisis" in 1994 for the George Marshall Institute.  Baliunas was, at the time, the chair of the Marshall Institute's Science Advisory Board and Fred Seitz was the Chairman of the Board...a full throttle denial team if ever there was one.

Remember the Marshall Institute?  Oh yeah, Exxon announced that they had dropped their funding last year...who needs Marshall when you have their scientists on a leash.  

Here is an excerpt from SallyBali's Ozone junk science:



Sound familiar?  Talk about lies and misinformation, check out the projected cost estimates of getting rid of CFCs!  Wow, was Sally wrong...its a wonder she wasn't so ashamed as to never publish again...but wait, there is no shame for a denier!

During the early Bush years, Soon and Baliunas were back in action, joint authors of a denial classic attacking mainstream climate conclusions.

Sound familiar?  Talk about lies and misinformation, check out the projected cost estimates of getting rid of CFCs!  Wow, was Sally wrong...its a wonder she wasn't so ashamed as to never publish again...but wait, there is no shame for a denier!

During the early Bush years, Soon and Baliunas were back in action, joint authors of a denial classic attacking mainstream climate conclusions.

"Lessons & Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual?" was published by the George Marshall Institute.  Jeff Nesmith of Cox News Service,  revealed that the study was funded by the American Petroleum Institute. Senator Inhofe of course loved the report!

Soon went on to coauthor another denial classic,  Polar Bears Are Doing Just Fine , reviewed by ExxonSecrets back in 2007.

This polar bear paper is key because, old Willie proudly admits both Exxon and American Petroleum Institute funding to support the research.  However, Exxon didn't report this funding in its Worldwide Giving Report or to the IRS...they never said a word about it...

After an October 17th 2007 House Science Committee hearing entitled, Disappearing Polar Bears and Permafrost: Is a Global Warming Tipping Point Embedded in the Ice?, Representative Brad Miller of North Carolina penned a letter to Exxon demanding answers.  He wrote, “Exxon has the right to fund any research or publications it wishes.  However, the Congress and the public have the right to know why ExxonMobil is funding a scientist whose writing is outside his area of expertise to create the impression that expert scientists have conducted rigorous, peer-reviewed work that says the problems with polar bears are unproven or unserious.”

As far as we know Rep. Miller never got answers.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

NASA animation shows Arctic sea ice approaching normal levels - no big media report

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the maximum extent for Arctic sea ice was reached on March 31st. This is the latest date maximum extent has been reached since 1979 when satellites began measuring the Arctic Ice.

The center said that it was thought the sea ice was done growing around the beginning of March. However, late season winter storms over the Bering and Barents Seas allowed it to continue to enlarge. “By the end of March, total extent approached 1979 to 2000 average levels for this time of year,” the NSIDC said.

With the good news last month that Arctic sea ice has rebounded to near normal levels, one would expect the media to announce the new data with a great deal of vigor. That was not the case as many media outlets sought to spin even this bit of good climate change news.

Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

This statement however is not entirely accurate and fails to reflect the fact that sea ice has grown in each of the past three seasons.

Hood [the author of the AFP story] mentions that 2007 saw a record low extent for the Arctic ice cap, which is true. He then says it “thawed to its second smallest size in 2008, followed by the third smallest in 2009.” When worded like that, it sounds grim, but perhaps a more honest wording would be “After reaching a record low in 2007, the summer minimum ice level improved in each of the following two summers and is now at a decade-long maximum for the current time of the year.”
~ Ross Kaminsky, National Review

Despite the spin put on the story by the AFP and other media outlets, the public doesn’t appear to be buying what they are selling