Will Fossil Fuel Companies Face Liability for Climate Change?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In a recent article in National Journal, Americans for Prosperity (AFP) President Tim Phillips said there is no question that AFP and others like it have been instrumental in the rise of Republican candidates who question or deny climate science: "We've made great headway. What it means for candidates on the Republican side is, if you … buy into green energy or you play footsie on this issue, you do so at your political peril."

AFP is a section 501©(4) organization, meaning it does not have to disclose its donors, but has been tied to significant funding from the Koch Family Foundations - founded by the billionaire Koch brothers of Koch Industries – as well as smaller donations from companies like ExxonMobil. Koch Industries and ExxonMobil are among the largest funders of studies questioning climate change science, often drawn upon by conservative politicians to legitimize their view that regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is not needed because the science is still under debate.

These organizations and their supporters say they are just funding their own independent studies of climate change science. Yet these studies almost all go against observable scientific data to question global warming – so much so that one study funded in part by the Kochs that confirmed a rise in average world land temperature was regarded as an anomaly. Which raises the question: if these studies are largely designed not to shed light on climate change, but to create doubt and confusion to delay greenhouse gas regulations, why is it legal, and do those deliberately spreading misinformation face liability?

The first question, as far as I can tell, apparently boils down to: it's legal because we have yet to make the deliberate manipulation of science illegal.

Yet while people and companies enjoy the First Amendment right to free speech, legal scholars have argued that right does not extend to influencing people under false pretenses. According to former tobacco industry lawyer Stephen Susman, when it comes to fossil fuel companies and supporters funding their own research on climate change, if "they knew the information they were spreading was false and being used to deliberately influence public opinion—that would override their First Amendment rights."

This question may soon be playing out in the courts.

History of the science

Research on climate change goes back over a century. Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming lays out the long trajectory: from realizing GHGs trap heat and help warm the planet, to identifying them, to tracking GHG emissions into the atmosphere and oceans from the burning of fossil fuels, to measuring the effects.

The research was developed enough that a 1965 report to the Johnson administration,Restoring the Quality of Our Environment, discussed the increase in global carbon dioxide emissions and the possible dire effects. In a 1969 memo, President Nixon's Democratic adviser, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, wrote that it was "pretty clearly agreed" that carbon dioxide levels were rising fast and would increase the average temperature near the earth's surface, and that such dangers justified government action.

Attempts to water down the implications of the science soon followed. Science historian Naomi Oreskes and others found that, in 1983, a committee of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences chaired by physicist William Nierenberg reframed the growing consensus around anthropogenic warming as a "nonproblem" that would have limited effects humans could adapt to, as with past changes in human history. Nierenberg was cofounder of the conservative George C. Marshall Institute, and – as documented in Oreskes and Eric Conways's Merchants of Doubt (2010) – part of a group of government scientific advisers that went from Cold War warriors supporting nuclear weapons to staunch corporate defenders questioning the science on tobacco smoke, acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, and eventually climate change science, among other issues.

Yet the science marched on. In 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified to the U.S. Congress that he believed with 99 percent confidence that substantial global warming was under way, and would rise significantly unless greenhouse gas emissions were reduced. That same year, the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of about 2,500 international climate scientists who evaluate the research on climate change (which often end up being conservative estimates of likely effects, arguably because of the need for agreement among government representatives).

In 1990, IPCC scientists completed their first assessment report for policymakers, stating they were certain human activities were increasing greenhouse gas emissions and warming, with the second report, in 1995, concluding there was a discernible human influence on climate.

The stage seemed set for an international treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

History of the nonscience

That's when fossil fuel companies and their supporters sprang in to fund their own research. In 1988 the coal industry founded the Western Fuels Association (WFA), headed by Fred Palmer, who later became vice president of Peabody Energy, the largest private coal company in the world. As outlined in Ross Gelbspan's The Heat Is On (1998), the WFA actively sought to refute the growing consensus on climate change, stating in its report that "when [the climate change] controversy first erupted at the peak of summer in 1988, Western Fuels Association decided it was important to take a stand.… cientists were found who are skeptical about the potential for climate change."

A 1998 memo leaked from the National Environmental Trust to the New York Times detailed that a dozen people working for big oil companies, trade associations, and conservative think tanks had been meeting at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters to propose a $5 million campaign to convince people that global warming science was riddled with controversy and uncertainty.

Industries like oil and large manufacturers created the lobbying group Global Climate Coalition (GCC) in 1989, with the stated purpose of "cast[ing] doubt on the theory of global warming." A Freedom of Information Act request unearthed 2001 U.S. State Department documents to the GCC suggesting former President George W. Bush's decision to pull out of UN international negotiations on climate change had been shaped in part by GCC and Exxon.

The George W. Bush Administration not only resisted GHG regulations, but actively edited government reports to question the science of climate change, one time drawing upon research funded in part by ExxonMobil. As documented by Greenpeace and others, ExxonMobil and Koch Industries went on to become major donors of such research, finding a platform in conservative think tanks and media.

The result? The U.S. perception of scientific consensus about climate change went down in line with the growth of corporate-funded research, particularly among Republicans, even as the science became more clear and the effects more apparent. While the awareness of a consensus is inching back up (although there is still much more confusion than there arguably should be over whether humans are a factor), the U.S. has yet to regulate greenhouse gases, even as the International Energy Agency warns that we may be five years away from being deadlocked into runaway warming.

Social scientists have noted internal barriers to action on climate change – that even people who acknowledge the science may not necessarily alter how they live to match that knowledge. In other words, accepting the consensus on climate change science might not have been enough for swift, immediate action.

Yet the evidence also seems clear that comprehensive understanding of the issue for the nation was muddled, and deliberately so: in 2009, an internal Global Climate Coalition document was leaked to the New York Times – a primer written in 1995 for coalition members admitting that the "scientific basis for the greenhouse effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide on climate is well established and cannot be denied."

Yet we are now at the stage where denying climate change, or at least the human factor, is apparently a prerequisite for being the Republican nominee for President, as Phillips has bragged. This stance would be completely unacceptable if not for the studies funded by fossil fuel industries and supporters. And it has been disastrous for creating U.S. policies to address climate change.

Liability?

In 2008, the small Inupiat nation and city of Kivalina, Alaska, filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil and 23 other fossil fuel companies for federal public nuisance – the damage of their homeland, which will be uninhabitable within a few decades, as sea ice no longer sufficiently buffers the barrier reef island against erosion from fall storms. Their claim argues that Kivalina has an identifiable, discrete harm, traceable to greenhouse gas emissions, of which the defendant companies are among the world's largest contributors. They seek damages: their relocation costs.

Kivalina also charged a smaller subset of companies with secondary claims of conspiracy and concert of action for creating a false debate about climate change science. In other words, these companies knew they were contributing to harm, but rather than change their practices, they instead funded a false debate about climate change science.

The lawsuit was dismissed one year later as a "political question" – the district court ruled that climate change was a matter for the executive and legislative branches, not the judicial branch, which is how three prior global warming public nuisance cases had been ruled. The judge also denied Kivalina's legal standing to bring the suit. The secondary claims involving the misinformation campaigns of defendant companies went unaddressed.

Kivalina appealed the decision, with oral arguments heard in November of this year. If the claim is allowed to move forward, it could reach the discovery phase, which may unearth more documents similar to that leaked to the New York Times, suggesting deliberate intent to deceive.

Defendant companies argue that climate change is not a matter for the courts – the problem is too big, and we are all responsible. Yet we have not all embarked on multi-million dollar campaigns to fund our own research and prevent change. It is these secondary claims that could be the crux of establishing whether fossil fuel companies will eventually bear liability for harm from greenhouse gas emissions. As prior cases involving lead, asbestos, and tobacco lawsuits show, people seem to think it is one thing to do your own research, but it is another to deliberately deceive people, contributing to widespread harm primarily to retain profits.

Christine Shearer is a researcher for CoalSwarm, part of SourceWatch, and a postdoctoral scholar at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at UC Santa Barbara. She is managing editor of Conducive, and author of the book, "Kivalina: A Climate Change Story" (Haymarket Books, 2011).

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Typical liberal move. Litigate what you cannot legislate because people do not want it.

They tried this with gun control. A deluge of liability lawsuits in an attemot to get what they wanted but could not get using the means allowed for in our laws. Even if they do not win the legal case, they surmise, they can force what they want through huge expenses on legal defense. This is a grown up (if you can call it that) version of a 3 year old's temper tantrum

It has as its basis people that think they are so much smarter and better than the normal dolts that they just have to do this for own good because we are too stupid to see that they are correct.

It backfired with gun control. Congress passed legislation to prevent liability lawsuits except in cases of manufacturing defects, like with any other product, or violations of law.

The same could happen with this type of litigation. The companies that are the victims of this are going to demand they be protected provided they stay within the law. Legislators, having inflated egos themselves, are going to pass legislation preventing someone else from "making laws" through litigation, an area they jealously reserve for themselves.

The good news? When a group seeking some sort of change resorts to this tactic, they are almost finished. It means thay have no legislative recourse and are trying an "end around"...it is a "Hail Mary" pass.

Funding for gloabl warming studies has been cut during Obama's administration, Canada has backed out of Kyoto. What is left for these losers but to flounder around in court

Edited January 5, 2012 by Gary and Alla

[luckytxn 2,265]

If they try to outlaw the spreading of fake science then the GW front would collapse. Be careful of what you wish for. So far the GW scientists have falsified, omitted data, allowed no contrary debate, etc. What the article says should be done to the AFP and other groups will also come back to bite the GW crowd.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

If they try to outlaw the spreading of fake science then the GW front would collapse. Be careful of what you wish for. So far the GW scientists have falsified, omitted data, allowed no contrary debate, etc. What the article says should be done to the AFP and other groups will also come back to bite the GW crowd.

Can you please provide links to your bolded statement?

[luckytxn 2,265]

Can you please provide links to your bolded statement?

Will do. This is just a start so will just post a few to start. There is so much proof.

Conspiracy To Falsify Temperature Data Uncovered

E-mail messages between high-ranking scientists appear to indicate a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists to falsify temperature data in order to exaggerate global averages.

Those involved allegedly include: James Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Michael Mann, famous for Mann's "Hockey Stick"; Gavin Schmidt, NASA climate modeler, and; Stephen Schneider, Stanford professor and Al Gore confidant.

A statement released Friday by the alarmist website RealClimate has confirmed that e-mail servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Norwich, England, were hacked recently with contents illegally made available over the Internet.

Although the authenticity of all these e-mail messages has yet to be proven, what's currently available points to a coordinated attempt to manipulate climate data by those directly involved in advancing the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

New Zealand's Investigate magazine reported Friday that it has verified these e-mail messages are indeed real:

The director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."

The BBC.com filed this report moments ago:

A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.

"We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites," the spokesman stated.

The journal Nature got a comment from one of the scientists whose name appears on some of these e-mail messages:

Some climate-sceptic bloggers are already poring over the posted material, which includes e-mails allegedly sent by the CRU's director Phil Jones to fellow climate researchers, including Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. Mann is the author of a widely cited assessment of past climate records, known as the hockey-stick graph, which shows a pronounced global-warming trend during the latter part of the twentieth century.

"I'm not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained e-mails," says Mann. "However, their theft constitutes serious criminal activity. I'm hoping that the perpetrators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows." Jones declined to comment on the matter.

Andrew Bolt of Australia's Herald Sun has more:

So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the

most prominent scientists

pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/20/possible-conspiracy-misreport-temperatures-found-media-mum#ixzz1ib04Gknv

[luckytxn 2,265]

IPCC Scientist's caught producing false data to push global warming.

Climate scientists allied with the IPCC have been caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception that could spell the beginning of the end for the acceptance of man-made climate change theories.<br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 23px; text-align: left; "><br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 23px; text-align: left; ">On Monday, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.<br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 23px; text-align: left; "><br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 23px; text-align: left; ">“This was startling,” reports the London Telegraph. “Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.”<br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 23px; text-align: left; "><br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 23px; text-align: left; ">It soon came to light that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October.

[luckytxn 2,265]

« Is Cowen my aunt? | Home | The Late Late ####### Show »

Global Warming theories based on deliberately falsified data

Grandad November 24th, 2009

I am more than a little surprised that the Prophets of Doom haven’t been out trying to scare the shite out of us lately.

Ireland and Cumbria in the UK have been suffering the worst floods on record, to the extent that Ireland’s second city – Cork – now bears a close resemblance to Venice.

I would have thought that this was the ultimate opportunity for the Climate Change Alarmists to scream ‘we told you so’ from the rooftops. They have been remarkably quiet. There was one bloke interviewed on the news who muttered that the only solution to the flooding was to save the planet, but everyone politely ignored him. Maybe they know about the CRU?

There is a section of East Anglia University known as the Climatic Research Unit. It is described as “one of the world’s leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.” In other words, this is one of the worlds great authorities who are convincing us that it is our actions that are influencing the climate.

Some of you may not be aware of this, but a sizeable chunk of files from the CRU have been placed in the public domain, whether deliberately or by hackers is not know. That is irrelevant as the CRU are not denying that the files are genuine.

While the majority of the files are somewhat tedious [there are some 60Mb of emails and code] there are some that are, quite frankly, alarming.

There are mails in there talking about destroying data before Freedom of Information requests are made. There are mails talking about the use of ‘tricks’ to falsify data. There are notes from programmers saying that the data is confused and mixed up, and that they [apparently] are taking data at random from files. There are mails discussing ways to discredit scientists with opposing views. All in all, it makes for some pretty frightening reading.

Quite a few people have been analysing the CRU data, and the site I have been following is ‘The Devil’s Kitchen’ who has done a huge amount of work on the subject.

I am not saying that the ‘leaked’ data completely discredits the work of the CRU. What I am saying is that it puts an enormous question mark over their findings, and therefore on the whole ‘man is causing global warming’ argument.

I am also not one who generally goes in for conspiracy theories. However, here we have a conspiracy that makes sense.

We have reached the point where Global Warming has to be man made. It is not only an industry that is potentially worth trillions of dollars [not billions – trillions] but it is the ultimate weapon to prevent China, India and Africa from threatening the western domination of the world. By the time that Global Warming is proved to be a natural event, it will be too late to stop the eco-industries, and the developing countries will have been kept firmly in their place – at the bottom of the heap.

It makes sense.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws

Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.

A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.

Jones and a collaborator have been accused by a climate changesceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming – a hotly contested issue.

Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones's collaborator, Wei-­Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had "screwed up".

The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings. But they do call into question the probity of some climate change science.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

Wang was cleared of scientific fraud by his university, but new information brought to light today indicates at least one senior colleague had serious concerns about the affair.

It also emerges that documents which Wang claimed would exonerate him and Jones did not exist.

The revelations come at a torrid time for climate science, with the IPPC suffering heavy criticism for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked – in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 – and UEA having been criticised last week by the deputy information commissioner for refusing valid requests for data under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Guardian has learned that of 105 freedom of information requests to the university concerning the climatic research unit (CRU), which Jones headed up to the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.

The temperature data from the Chinese weather stations measured the warming there over the past half century and appeared in a 1990 paper in the prestigious journal Nature, which was cited by the IPCC's latest report in 2007.

Climate change sceptics asked the UEA, via FOI requests, for location data for the 84 weather stations in eastern China, half of which were urban and half rural.

The history of where the weather stations were sited was crucial to Jones and Wang's 1990 study, as it concluded the rising temperatures recorded in China were the result of global climate changes rather the warming effects of expanding cities.

The IPCC's 2007 report used the study to justify the claim that "any urban-related trend" in global temperatures was small. Jones was one of two "coordinating lead authors" for the relevant chapter.

The leaked emails from the CRU reveal that the former director of the unit, Tom Wigley, harboured grave doubts about the cover-up of the shortcomings in Jones and Wang's work. Wigley was in charge of CRU when the original paper was published. "Were you taking W-CW [Wang] on trust?" he asked Jones. He continued: "Why, why, why did you and W-CW not simply say this right at the start?"

Jones said he was not able to comment on the story.

Wang said: "I have been exonerated by my university on all the charges. When we started on the paper we had all the station location details in order to identify our network, but we cannot find them any more.

"Some of the location changes were probably only a few metres, and where they were more we corrected for them."

In an interview with the Observer on Sunday Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, warned of the danger of a public backlash against mainstream climate science over claims that scientists manipulated data. He declared a "battle" against the "siren voices" who denied global warming was real or caused by humans. "It's right that there's rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it's somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that's there," he said.

Last week the Information Commissioner's Office – the body that administers the Freedom of Information Act – said the University of East Anglia had flouted the rules in its handling of an FOI request in May 2008.

Days after receiving the request for information from the British climate change sceptic David Holland, Jones asked Prof Mike Mann of Pennsylvania State University in the United States: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise.

"Can you also email Gene [Eugene Wahl, a paleoclimatologist in Boulder, Colorado] and get him to do the same ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann, also from Boulder] to do the same."

The University of East Anglia says that no emails were deleted following this exchange.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Will post a couple of youtube vids.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Can you please provide links to your bolded statement?

You can pass those on to your friends now Bobby, I presume that is why you wanted the links.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Maybe easier to google, "climategate". Want me to also start posting how each of the famous reports that are said to be so called proof of GW were falsified also?

Also wanted to add that it wasn't my bolded part but yours.

Edited January 5, 2012 by luckytxn

[one...two...tree 2,762]

See, Bobby? It's a worldwide conspiracy to make us all ride bicycles and become communists. Newsbusters says so. We don't need no stinking bodies of science like the IPCC or NASA telling us the real science. We can just go on the internets and dig for the truth.

[luckytxn 2,265]

See, Bobby? It's a worldwide conspiracy to make us all ride bicycles and become communists. Newsbusters says so. We don't need no stinking bodies of science like the IPCC or NASA telling us the real science. We can just go on the internets and dig for the truth.

Going to deny that they haven't falsified, omitted data to get the results they were wanting? Going to deny that they threatened peer review publications were threatened with a loss of material if they allowed contrary opinion peer review and to only allow like minded scientists to peer review their published work?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Oh, great! Seize the capital of the evil industrialists and use the money to reeducate the masses until everybody is good little tree huggers.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The Soviets would be proud of Comrade Steven!