desmogblog.com

Further revelations have come to light since the recent controversial expose in the New Yorker about Koch Industries, surrounding New York billionaire David Koch and his company’s involvement in the industry-led effort to downplay the links between formaldehyde and cancer.

In 2008, the president of one of Koch Industry's subsidiaries sat as the Chair of a pro-Formaldehyde lobby group called the Formaldehyde Council. The subsidiary, Georgia-Pacific, is also a long-time funder of the Formaldehyde Council.

Among other things, the Formaldehyde Council tried to downplay the negative health impacts of formaldehyde in trailers set up for victims of the Katrina disaster.

Prior to the recent media attention, the New York social elite knew David Koch mostly for his commendable charitable donations to groups like the American Ballet Theater and the American Museum of Natural History.

Learning that he, through his role as senior executive and Chairman of Koch Industries, also bankrolls far-right groups and causes that regularly question President Obama's U.S. citizenship and deny climate science surely piqued their interest in Koch's other side.

One baffling conflict mentioned by journalist Jane Mayer in her New Yorker article is David Koch's generous funding of cancer research, while simultaneously his companies and their lobbying groups fight against federal efforts to regulate the known human carcinogen formaldehyde.

David Koch was diagnosed with prostate cancer in the early 1990s, and since then has become a major financier of cancer research, donating hundreds of millions of dollars to respected cancer research centers such as Sloan-Kettering, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, M.I.T. and Johns Hopkins University, as Mayer notes.

For his commendable charitable work, David Koch was appointed to the National Cancer Advisory Board,a committee of the US National Cancer Institute, in 2004 by President George W. Bush and remains a member today [pdf].

Our research has uncovered very strong ties between Georgia-Pacific, a company co-owned by David Koch through Koch Industries, and a political lobby group called the Formaldehyde Council that is involved in efforts to downplay the dangers posed by formaldehyde to human health.

Formaldehyde is classified as a “Group 1 Carcinogen” which is defined as an agent that "is definitely carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and "a complete carcinogen" in the words of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The National Toxicology Program also recently revised its characterization of formaldehyde to that of “known human carcinogen.”

<!--break-->But this determination by top scientists and researchers has not stopped Formaldehyde Council Inc. from trying to convince lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the links between Formaldehyde and cancer are highly overstated. Executive Director of the Formaldehyde Council, Betsy Natz recently wrote a letter to the President's Panel on Cancer [pdf] arguing that:

"Despite today’s statement, scientists agree that formaldehyde does not pose a health risk at typical levels of exposure. Americans should feel confident in the knowledge that formaldehyde-based products are safe."

On their website, the Formaldehyde Council tries to downplay the powerful carcinogen through slick key messaging like,

"the bottom line is that formaldehyde doesn't stick around very long so it doesn't accumulate in the human body or in the environment."

In 2009, Natz tried to downplay concerns regarding dangerous levels of Formaldehyde detected in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) trailers provided to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Natz told the New Orleans Times-Picayune that,

"Americans should feel confident in the knowledge that formaldehyde-based products, such as composite wood panels produced and certified to be low in emissions by domestic manufacturers, are safe.”

According to IRS filings [pdf], the Formaldehyde Council was formed in 1995 with the mission to,

“encourage accurate scientific evaluation of Formaldehyde and Formaldehyde-based materials and to communicate sound scientific information relating to the uses, benefits and sustainability of these products.”

The Council’s operating budget in 2008 was $2.7 million and it reported $2 million in “membership dues and assessments.”

David Koch’s company, Georgia-Pacific, one of the largest manufacturers of Formaldehyde in the United States, is listed on the Formaldehyde Council’s website as a “member” since at least 2004.

In IRS filings for 2008, Richard Urschel, the President of Georgia-Pacific’s chemical division is listed as the Chair of the Formaldehyde Council. In 2006, Urschel served as the Council’s Vice-Chair. According to the Council’s stated by-laws only “Tier 1” members can have a place on the Board of Directors, and in order to become a Tier 1 member a company must pay $200,000 in annual dues to the Council.

David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers bankrolling the front groups behind the Tea Party and climate denial movement, have added another 'cause' to their philanthropic endeavors, donating $1 million to the Proposition 23 fight to kill California's landmark 2006 climate change legislation.

Koch subsidiary Flint Hills Resources LP handled the laundry duties on this one, but the directive surely came from the heads of the Kochtopus empire - billionaires David and Charles Koch.

The Kochs have found themselves under an uncomfortable spotlight lately after a thorough investigation by The New Yorker revealed the brothers' extensive funding of a network of groups that catapulted the 'grassroots' Tea Party into play, as well as their financial backing of a sprawling network of climate denier groups that makes even ExxonMobil blush.

The Los Angeles Times blog 'Greenspace' first reported Flint Hills Resources donation towards the Proposition 23 bill last night, noting that the effort was launched by two other oil industry players, Texas-based refinery companies Valero Energy and Tesoro Corp.
<!--break-->
The Kochs have lost much of the anonymity they enjoyed over the past several decades in the political world. Ever since David Koch's disastrous performance in the 1980 elections when he bought his way onto the Libertarian Party's ticket as Vice Presidential candidate - a ticket that earned only one percent of the vote - the Kochs have stayed below the radar for the most part.  

Until recently, David was better known in New York social circles for his charitable donations to the arts and humanities, while Charles focused on running Koch Industries with an iron fist.  But since the New Yorker piece and a report by Greenpeace in March documenting the Kochs' support for the climate denial machine, the brothers can do little without receiving massive media attention.

As the world looks more closely, it seems the Kochs have their hands in all sorts of anti-democratic pies, and now we know that undermining California voters' choice to confront climate change is among them.

Wonder where else the Koch brothers' influence will pop up this election cycle? Stay tuned as more tentacles of the Kochtopus emerge into the sunshine.

TVA coal ash.jpeg

September is back to school month, but the next big test for the White House and EPA has already begun. How the Obama administration handles the proposed regulation of coal ash - the toxic waste left over from coal-burning power plants loaded with mercury, lead, and arsenic - will serve as a key indicator of the administration's sincerity in responding to one of the worst energy and environmental crises threatening the health and water supplies of millions of Americans.

Two key states, Tennessee and Alabama, have been shut out of the discussion on how best to regulate coal ash, thanks to EPA's bewildering decision not to hold public hearings in either state. Residents of Tennessee might have a few things to say about the impacts of coal ash, since the state suffered the worst coal ash disaster in U.S. history less than two years ago.

<!--break-->The failure of the Tennessee Valley Authority's massive coal slurry containment pond near its Kingston coal plant gushed more than 1 billion gallons of toxic coal ash into nearby streams, destroyed three homes and continues to endanger the water supplies and health of nearby residents.

Meanwhile, a rural town in Perry County, Alabama is receiving the toxic leftovers from the spill by the train full. Uniontown, Alabama is host to the bankrupt Arrowhead landfill where the coal ash "spilled" into the Emory River is being buried. Thirty percent of residents in Perry County - which is majority African American - live below the poverty line, another prime example of environmental injustice in the South.

Why the EPA would gloss over Tennessee's and Alabama's input on coal ash by neglecting to hold hearings there is anyone's guess. The nearest public hearing is in Charlotte, North Carolina, a 260-mile drive away for the Tennessee victims of the TVA disaster. Uniontown residents would have to drive nearly 500 miles, an 8-hour trip, to have their say in Charlotte.

In contrast, residents of Denver, Colorado will enjoy a hearing in their home town, even though there isn't a single coal ash damage case in the state of Colorado, according to the "In Harm's Way" report released last week by the Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club and Earthjustice.

Here is a little visual reminder for the EPA about what Tennessee residents experienced in the wake of the TVA disaster:

There has been a recent surge in articles from fossil-fuel friendly sources pointing to the inequity of tax credits and government subsidies being directed to the renewable energy sector. 

The latest is by Alan Caruba writing on the industry-backed CFACT website bemoaning a $7 million investment in a wind project in New Jersey. 

What Caruba and others fail to mention in their argument is that the fossil fuel industry - the main competitor to the renewable energy sector - receives more than ten times as much in government subsidies globally.

A recent report by Bloomberg New Finance finds that worldwide, the fossil fuel industry - which is made up mainly of oil, gas and coal companies - receives $557 billion a year in government subsidies while the renewable energy sector receives less than one-tenth of the support at around $45 billion.

<!--break-->

In the United States, government spends two-times more money on subsidies to the fossil fuel sector, with $72.5 billion going to dirty fuels and $29 billion to clean technology. And half of that $29 billion goes into subsidies for corn-based ethanol and not wind, solar and geothermal technology.

Not mentioning the ridiculousness of subsidizing companies like ExxonMobil, one of the most profitable companies in the history of the world, this uneven playing ground in the energy sector between fossil fuels and clean energy is what allows people like Caruba to make his false arguments.

 

ken_cuccinelli_370x278.jpeg

The Washington Post penned an excellent editorial yesterday deriding Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's political attack against climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann, a former UVA professor whom Cuccinelli has targeted in a witch hunt.  

The Post editorial notes that "the overblown critique of climate science that emerged early this year continues to underwhelm," citing several examples of the recent rash of politically-motivated attacks on climate science, including the much-ado-about-nothing 'Climategate' episode last winter, the repeated attacks against the integrity of the U.N. IPCC, and of course Mr. Cuccinelli's witch hunt against UVA and Mike Mann. 

This week's ruling by Circuit Court Judge Paul Peatross confirming that Cuccinelli lacked "an objective basis" for his witch hunt "put a damper on a pernicious fishing expedition," the Post says.

But that hasn't checked "Mr. Cuccinelli's zeal," since he immediately announced plans to re-rig his fishing pole and try again to smear Dr. Mann, "thereby extending his assault on academic freedom," says the Post.

The editorial closes with sharp criticism for Cuccinelli's attempt to "embarrass Virginia":

"We hope he rethinks his course. At this point all he can do is waste more taxpayer money, force the university to waste more of its money and embarrass Virginia in a way that can only harm its higher education system." 

Check out the full editorial, "A judge puts a damper on Mr. Cuccinelli's U-Va. witch hunt." <!--break-->

 

This New York Times online editorial last week by Tim Egan, "Building a Nation of Know-Nothings," says a lot about the need for literacy, respect for facts and rational thought all being important building blocks for democracy.  

Egan notes the "astonishing level of willful ignorance" evident among the public, thanks to the lies and distortions put forward "largely by design" by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, "aided by a press afraid to call out the primary architects of the lies."

Egan correctly points out that this pattern is all too often seen on the subject of global warming:

"Climate-change denial is a special category all its own. Once on the fringe, dismissal of scientific consensus is now an article of faith among leading Republicans, again taking their cue from Limbaugh and Fox." 

Read "Building a Nation of Know-Nothings" on The New York Times website. <!--break-->

 

 

capitol coal.JPG

Red State bloggers are all in a tizzy over an Open Secrets article showing that the American Wind Energy Association spent over $5 million last year on lobbying politicians in Washington, DC.

It's about time we started seeing the clean energy sector make its voice heard on Capitol Hill and I hope we see more people pushing lawmakers to consider legislation that promotes the use of clean and unlimited sources of energy like the sun and the wind.

But the hair-pulling by Red State bloggers is more than a little ridiculous when you consider that the American Wind Energy Association's $5 million lobby expenditure is equal to about 5 minutes of lobbying by the oil and gas lobby which spent a whopping $175 million in the same time period.

Looking over the last ten years, the numbers are even more startling.

<!--break-->

Since 1999 the oil and gas sector has spent over $862 million - close to a billion dollars - trying to win concessions in the Capitol for their products. Combine this amount with the approximately $1.2 billion spent by electrical utilities and that is over $2 billion spent since 1999 in the name of oil, gas and coal.

In the same period the entire alternative energy sector spent  a meager $105 million - one-twentieth the amount spent by its main competition. 

Lobbying has its place in politics, no doubt about it - everyone, including industry, should have a chance to convince politicians of their argument for or against a proposed law or regulation. But the system is broken when a single sector can flood Capitol Hill with close to a billion dollars and drown out any other voice, which is exactly what the oil and gas industry does every day to great effect.

bjorn-lomborg.jpeg

 

The Guardian reports today that long-time global warming contrarian Bjorn Lomborg has changed his tune a bit, and now acknowledges that climate change is "a challenge humanity must confront."  In an interview with the paper, Lomborg calls for a carbon tax and a $100 billion annual investment in clean technologies and other solutions to climate disruption. 

Lomborg has never been among the outright climate deniers, acknowledging repeatedly over the years that he accepts the science confirming manmade global warming.  But until now he has downplayed the need for massive investment to solve the problem, and is often seen cavorting with the ExxonMobil-funded denier crowd.  In his 2007 book ‘Cool It,’ he argued that spending huge amounts of money to address climate change would do little to address the problem.  

Now it appears Lomborg has come to his senses, becoming an unlikely advocate for massive public investment in creating a low carbon energy future. 

“It's about technologies, about realizing there's a vast array of solutions," he tells the Guardian.

<!--break-->Lomborg has even attracted the endorsement of U.N. climate chief Rajendra Pachauri - who once compared Lomborg to Hitler.  Dr. Pachauri supplied an unlikely endorsement of Lomborg’s forthcoming book, Smart Solutions to Climate Change.  "This book provides not only a reservoir of information on the reality of human-induced climate change, but raises vital questions and examines viable options on what can be done," Pachauri wrote.

It will be interesting to see how the Exxon- and Koch-funded climate disinformation machine reacts to Lomborg's new emphasis on fighting climate change. 

 

The fallout continues from a very comprehensive New Yorker report exposing Koch Industries massive ideological machine with an opinion piece in the Sunday New York Times by columnist Frank Rich called: The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party.

Out in front of this controversy is a group called the Americans for Prosperity that has recieved millions from Koch Industries and has been touring the United States spreading misinformation about the realities of climate change and organizing local tea party protests.

Here is the background research we have put together over the years on the Americans for Prosperity and Koch Industries:

Background on Americans for Prosperity (AFP)

Background on Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity

Comprehensive background and history of Koch Industries

Background on Koch Industries - company holdings and investments

Background on Koch Industries and lobbying in Washington, DC

Background on Koch Industries and George Mason University

<!--break-->

A year ago, these groups seemed to be at the peak of their influence, needing only the Senate's approval for a landmark climate-change bill. But they lost that fight, done in by the sluggish economy and opposition from business and fossil-fuel interests.

Now the groups are wondering how they can keep this loss from becoming a rout as their opponents press their advantage and try to undo the Obama administration's climate efforts. At two events last week in Wisconsin, environmental groups seemed to be trying two strategies: defiance and pleading for sympathy.Neither one drew enough people to fill a high school gym.

<!--break-->

 

Virginia Attorney General and global warming denier Ken Cuccinelli has been rebuffed by a state Circuit Court judge who ruled today that Cuccinelli's politically-charged subpoena against the University of Virginia and climate scientist Michael Mann lacked an “objective basis.”

Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. ruled that Cuccinelli’s subpoena failed to include a "reason to believe" that Mann violated Virginia fraud statutes by receiving research grants from the state to study climate change.  Cuccinelli is seeking years’ worth of documents related to Mann’s work at UVA, but his political attacks on climate science and efforts to waste Virginia taxpayers’ money will have to return to the drawing board. 

In his six-page ruling Judge Peatross wrote:

"What the Attorney General suspects that Dr. Mann did that was false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth is simply not stated."

Dr. Mann, who now works at Penn State University, said in a statement: "It is a victory not just for me and the university, but for all scientists who live in fear that they may be subject to a politically-motivated witch hunt when their research findings prove inconvenient to powerful vested interests.”
<!--break-->

But the victory is likely to be short-lived.  Any hopes that Cuccinelli would finally end his political circus act and focus on fighting real crime in Virginia were dashed when he immediately announced intentions to re-file the civil investigative demand.   

Extensive independent reviews of Mann’s work have all concluded the climate scientist has been nothing but honest and transparent.  Mann’s only ‘crime’ in Cuccinelli’s eyes is that he is a leading scientist conducting research that confirms humans have dangerously altered the climate.   

For that he must be smeared at taxpayers’ expense, according to Cuccinelli, whose crusade against science and reason is sure to continue. 

 

coal-sludge-image2.jpeg

A new study by three top environmental groups reveals another 39 coal ash threats in 21 states, bringing the total number of known coal ash threats to 137 in 34 states.  

The report by the Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice, and the Sierra Club details the newly identified slurry ponds and impoundments filled with toxic coal ash that threaten drinking water supplies and public health at sites around the country.  

Earlier this year the groups identified 31 coal ash disposal sites in 14 states, adding to the 67 sites already identified by the Environmental Protection Agency.  The latest report brings the total number to 137 sites where coal ash threatens public health and water supplies. 

The U.S. EPA is currently grappling with how to regulate the toxic coal ash threat, which is now checked only by individual state laws that have failed to adequately protect the public from this growing problem. <!--break-->

Adding even more evidence that “clean coal” is an industry fairy tale, coal-fired power plants around the country stockpile the toxic coal waste left over from the coal combustion process in ponds and impoundments far too often located dangerously close to drinking water supplies and residential communities.  

The report notes:
"In several cases (e.g., Hatfield’s Ferry (PA), Gallatin (TN), and Johnsonville (TN)), [coal combustion waste] disposal sites are leaking their toxic cargo into rivers just upstream from intakes for public water systems." 

The most egregious example of poor siting belongs to Massey Energy’s multi-billion gallon coal sludge impoundment, perched directly above the Marsh Fork elementary school in West Virginia.  Yes, a massive pool of dirty toxic coal waste perched above toddlers’ heads.  Great idea Massey!  (Thanks to a generous $2.5 million donation from the Annenberg Foundation, the school will soon be rebuilt in a new location.  Just in time too, since Massey had planned to build yet another coal silo near the school. The relocation will cost an estimated $8.5 million, relying mostly on state, county and local donations, with Massey agreeing to pay only $1 million.  The Annenberg contribution ensures the relocation will now move forward.)  

EPA will be hearing an earful about coal ash over the next month as seven public hearings are held in various cities to solicit public input on the coal ash regulations.  Utility industry and coal ash interests promise they will be out in force at these hearings.

An intense lobbying push by the coal and utility industries over the past year has put tremendous pressure on EPA to cave to industry demands and leave the issue up to individual states.  

Rather than spending money to clean up its toxic mess, the industry’s aggressive multi-million dollar K Street strategy threatens to undermine the critical need for strong coal ash regulations to protect water supplies and public health.

You can't link to the original article that appeared in the Sunday Telegraph in December that makes false accusations about Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because the newspaper has scrubbed the story clean from its website. 

But as Guardian columnist George Monbiot points out today the lies in the article had their desired effect. 

Monbiot writes:

"The story (which has subsequently been removed from the Sunday Telegraph’s website) immediately travelled around the world. It was reproduced on hundreds of blogs. The allegations it contained were widely aired in the media and generally believed."

The allegations put forth by the Telegraph were that Pachauri was profiting from his position as the head of the IPCC.

Turns out the story was completely false after the accounting firm KPMG was brought in to study all of Pachauri's financial records. 

In fact, Pachauri's compensation for his tireless work as the head of the IPCC is a whopping zero dollars and zero cents. That's right, he isn't paid a dime by the IPCC.

Check out Monbiot's in-depth analysis here: The Smearing Of An Innocent Man

<!--break-->

Arctic sea ice Aug 23, 2010.png

Those in search of clear, accessible explanations that debunk the latest denier talking points will be delighted to discover Wellesley College postdoc Alden Griffith and his website, Fool Me Once.

The site's subtitle is perfect and perfectly accurate - "What climate change deniers fear most: thorough explanations" - and Griffith provides two such explanations, so far. They're in the form of PowerPoint-style presentations with a voice-over and they categorically destroy the notion that (in Christopher Monckton's mendacious phrase) "Arctic sea ice is just fine" or that "global warming has stopped." I only wish that I had wallet-sized copies of Griffith's graphs so I could flash them at annoying relatives who parrot these lines as if they have some validity.<!--break-->

fuelingwashington.jpeg

The oil and gas industries unleashed a massive $175 million lobbying spree last year to derail U.S. efforts to address climate change, according to a new series of reports by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).  

OpenSecrets.org blogger Evan Mackinder reveals just how badly oil and gas interests pummeled the environmental community, which spent its own record $22.4 million trying to convince Washington to get its act together to fight global warming.  

As CRP notes, "Goliath whipped David."

CRP's new series, titled "Fueling Washington: How Oil Money Drives Politics," details the oil and gas industries' outsized influence in Washington. 
<!--break-->
In the recent battle over climate legislation, ExxonMobil alone spent more than all the environmental groups combined, stuffing $27.4 million into K Street coffers to ensure the status quo addiction to fossil fuels can continue unfettered by concerns for the climate.  

Combined with the contributions from Chevron, ConocoPhillips and the now infamous Koch Industries, Big Oil as a whole "hammered away in the background" while Washington debated healthcare reform, working to derail support for a carbon tax or cap-and-trade or anything else having to do with protecting future generations from dangerous climate disruption.  

Over an eighteen month period, Big Oil spent nearly $250 million to block climate action in the U.S. House and Senate, CRP reports.  

And Big Oil's K Street spigot is still flowing. So far in 2010, "the oil industry spent nearly $75 million between January and June -- equivalent to the government budget of a mid-sized American city -- lobbying the federal government," OpenSecrets blogger Andrew Kreighbaum notes.

With the political fallout from BP's destruction of the Gulf of Mexico set to last well into the next Congress, there's no doubt that Big Oil's lobbying gusher will keep spewing indefinitely.

koch.jpeg

The New Yorker has published a must-read article exposing the long reach of the "Kochtopus" network set up by Koch Industries to fuel the Tea Party and fund the climate denial machine.  

Written by investigative journalist Jane Mayer, the piece titled "Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging war against Obama" explores the decades-long efforts of brothers David and Charles Koch to manipulate and deceive the public on issues ranging from climate change to cancer-causing chemicals. 

Koch Industries has done far more than even ExxonMobil to fund the climate denial machine in recent years, and media coverage about numerous Tea Party and GOP candidates who deny the science of climate change confirm that the Kochs' reach has infected national politics in unprecedented ways.

The lengthy New Yorker article covers many interesting new angles about the Kochs' influence-peddling empire, and adds to a growing body of research about Koch Industries' anti-science, anti-democratic activities.

Building upon the research from Greenpeace's excellent Koch report earlier this year, Jane Mayer expands on Koch's role in funding climate deniers and anti-science think tanks, not to mention the Tea Party. 

Head over to The New Yorker to read the slimy details.   <!--break-->

 

ken_cuccinelli_370x278.jpeg

University of Virginia faculty, students and alumni will gather Friday afternoon to protest against Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's witch hunt against former UVA Professor and leading climate scientist Michael Mann.  The protest is timed to coincide with the ruling of a Virginia Circuit Court judge who is set to rule on whether to allow Cuccinelli's frivolous investigation to continue. 

Cuccinelli's political attack on climate science has two ongoing fronts right now, one targeting climate scientist Michael Mann, and another involving a lawsuit filed by Cuccinelli against the EPA attempting to block the agency's efforts to regulate carbon dioxide pollution. 

Charlottesville, Virginia ABC affiliate WHSV reports:

Students, faculty members and alumni of the University of Virginia will gather to protest Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s investigation of UVA and former UVA Professor Michael Mann Friday at 1 p.m. on the north (street) side of the University’s Rotunda at 1826 University Ave.

<!--break-->Four groups recently filed an amicus brief asking the Albemarle County Circuit Court judge to put an end to Cuccinelli's politically-motivated charade, including the ACLU of Virginia, American Association of University Professors, Union of Concerned Scientists and Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression.

"If the court permits the attorney general to gain access to the private communications among scientists whenever he disagrees with their ideas, the scientists will simply stop sharing their ideas," said Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia. "The chilling effect on academic freedom and scientific inquiry is incalculable."

Previously, a group of 675 Virginia professors signed a letter asking Cuccinelli to drop his "burdensome and entirely unwarranted" demands to probe years' worth of Mann's email, research papers and other documents.

But Cuccinelli has pressed on with his attempts to harass climate scientists and waste Virginia taxpayer dollars to suit his own political agenda.  

Details on the UVA protest tomorrow afternoon:

Protest begins at 1 p.m. on the north (street) side of the University’s Rotunda at 1826 University Ave. 

The Circuit Court judge is expected to release his statement at 2pm on the decision whether to allow Cuccinelli's witch hunt to continue. 

Pat-Michaels-40percent-oil.png

Notorious climate skeptic Pat Michaels of the CATO Institute finally admitted openly on CNN this weekend that 40 percent of his funding comes from - wait for it - Big Oil. 

DeSmogBlog readers have known for years about Michaels' long-time association with a network of at least eleven think tanks and industry front groups funded by ExxonMobil. Many of these same outlets have received funding from other oil interests like the Koch Family Foundations.

Michaels' admission that he receives around 40 percent - his guess - of his funding from Big Oil is important, because he is quoted widely in the media for his skepticism about manmade climate change.  As the ExxonSecrets profile of Pat Michaels sums up well, he is "possibly the most prolific and widely-quoted climate change skeptic scientist."

Fareed Zakaria deserves a round of applause for challenging Michaels directly to cough up a figure for how much oil money he receives to defend the status quo fossil fuel addiction and to confuse the public about the threat of climate change.  Far too few journalists bother to ask that question, and Zakaria has sent a much needed reminder to journalists - it is your job to expose the potential conflicts of interest among your interviewees.  Zakaria gets an A+ for outing Michaels' oily funding.
<!--break-->
H/T to Brad Johnson at ThinkProgress for the transcript and video of Michaels' CNN appearance below.

ThinkProgresss reports:

In a telling exchange with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria yesterday, long-time polluter apologist Pat Michaels admitted that “40 percent” of his funding comes from the oil industry. Michaels, introduced as “a scientist who now works for the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank that strongly opposes caps to carbon dioxide,” has promoted global warming denial for decades, funded by a network of oil and coal companies and their ideological allies. Michaels initially denied that he is funded by the petroleum industry, but backtracked under steady interrogation by Zakaria:

ZAKARIA: Let me ask you what people wonder about, advocates like you. They say —

MICHAELS: I’m advocating for efficiency.

ZAKARIA: Right. But people say that you’re advocating also for the current petroleum-based industry to stand pat, to stay as it is, and that a lot of your research is funded by these industries.

MICHAELS: Oh, no, no. First of all, what I’m saying is —

ZAKARIA: Well, is your research funded by these industries?

MICHAELS: Not largely. The fact of the matter is —

ZAKARIA: Can I ask you what percentage of your work is funded by the petroleum industry?

MICHAELS: I don’t know. 40 percent? I don’t know.

Watch it:

 

As ThinkProgress reader zxbe notes in the comments section over there:

"That’s a good investment by the oil industry. They put up 40% of the funds, and get to use 100% of the junk science."

 

sanford_moneymouth.jpg

Local Regina publication, Prairie Dog Magazine, is laying down the gauntlet by asking climate change skeptics to record their doubts on paper.

The magazine has created a declaration that outlines various scenarios for rejecting scientific consensus and has mailed it to several public figures who have openly expressed skepticism on the issue of global warming, including Stephen Harper, Margaret Wente, Rex Murphy, Tim Ball and Ross McKitrick amongst others. 

The plan to check in with the skeptics in 10 years is all about "accountability" and the magazine states that should they be wrong they will give credit where credit is due. And if they're right.....it's a sad bet to win.

<!--break-->

Arctic Ice Figure4 Aug 5, 2010.png

The National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Co., has posted an update on the state of Arctic ice, saying that current conditions point to a bad year, but not a record-breaker.

"If the daily rate of decline this August follows the average August rate of decline for 1979 to 2000, the daily sea ice minimum in September would be 5.00 million square kilometers (1.93 million square miles), considerably higher than the record minimum of 4.13 million square kilometers (1.59 million square miles) observed for September 16, 2007."

But if you look at the current graph, the ice is NOT following "the average August rate of decline." And if you look closely at the inset illustration showing the distribution of multi-year ice, and then read the NSIDC analysis under the heading, "Older, thicker ice melting in the southern Beaufort Sea," you will see the threat of long-term ice collapse.<!--break-->

The illustration shows a significant sprinkling of old ice that has been distributed into highly exposed and relatively warm areas of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. That ice is likely to melt in the coming weeks, reducing the gross amount of resilient old ice and making the entire ice cover more fragile in coming years.

For those of you who haven't discovered it already, the NSIDC link above will take you to a graph that is updated daily - providing an interesting, if slightly unsettling stop for anyone interested in indicators of the state of the climate.