One of the biggest issues being brought before the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) during its quarterly meeting on October 1 – 9, 2009 at the Hilton Hotel in downtown Anchorage has a really long title. It is Proposed Ammendment 94 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area to Require Trawl Sweep Modification in the Bering Sea Flatfish Fishery, Establish a Modified Gear Trawl Zone, and Revise Boundaries of the Northern Bering Sea Research Area and Saint Matthew Island Habitat Conservation Area 1. Wheww. That is long. The long and the short of it are this.

The yellow fin sole and other flat fish fishery wants more area in the Bering Sea to fish in. This because they say that the fish they want to catch is moving north due to climate changes in the Southern Bering Sea. We have a different opinion. And they want to use a “modified gear change to their fishing gear” that a scientist from the National Marine Fisheries Service says, “will lower the substrate destruction in this fish prosecution.” This is the “modification” that they are talking about. They are putting rollers on the cable that drags along the bottom of the ocean to lift that cable two inches off the bottom so “other life on the bottom” will not be disturbed. To be fair, they said the other life will not be destroyed as much as they would be if the rollers were not put on this really large and long heavy cable used to drag the bottom. Well this is going to destroy the bottom of the Bering Sea in any event. Now we must ask some questions about this proposed change in the Bering Sea Fishery Management Plan.

One is; on the research done to determine that this practice will do less harm, was there any peer review done to verify this data? The second question is; when the NPFMC is proposing to open up a here-to-fore Northern Research Area right next to Saint Matthew Island probably the size of Rhode Island, are there any other oversight issues and Federal and State Agencies that need to be consulted?

And finally; do the people who are to be most affected by this change need notification and consultation before a final rule is made? Just looking at the issue of the research and its findings, I am wondering why a "peer review" process was not done before the findings are made public. According to a news release in 2003 from the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, whenever any Federal Agency is involved in any research the size of this one, OMB says, "...all significant regulatory-science documents will be subjected to peer review by qualified specialists in appropriate technical disciplines." (Emphs my own). In a discussion I had with the researcher, there was none. Also the Data Quality Act passed by Congress states further: "...requires federal agencies to issue information quality guidelines ensuring the quality, utility, objectivity and integrity of information that they disseminate and provides..." (Emphs my own). I am wondering if this has been done.

It is time for the owners of this most precious resource, We The People, to ensure that how these resources are used to line the pockets of a few multi-national big business companies do so while following the laws we all have to follow. And to ensure that any Federal Agency responsible for any research done to seemingly support these big business companies, do the same. Can there be conflict of interest? Sure.

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.

 

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 new Exxon Giving report shows straight pipe funding, in the odd but specific sum of $76,106 to the  Smithsonian Astrophysics Observatory, home of Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. Sallie Baliunas.  Or we assume the cash went to these two, until Exxon explains itself. 

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.

Wait!!? Is that Ben Stiller starring as Willie and Amy Adams portraying a young spry Sally? Maybe they should spend a Night at the Museum...they might learn a few things.

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. 

"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.

By now, Willie Nilly has emerged from Sally Bali's shadow to become one of the go-to skeptics, appearing as a key speaker at the two recent Heartland Institute's Denial-Paloozas in New York.  Soon is again a featured panelist at next week's 3rd Heartland Institute Denial-Palooza (wait, didnt they just have the 2nd one about 2 months ago?) Senator Inhofe and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) will join the shrinking but noisy denial crew in DC on June 2nd.

The Exxon AGM season is like Christmas for us at ExxonSecrets and this year Santa treated us right.  Now, Rex Tillerson,  what exactly have you been paying Soon and Baliunas to do and for how long?  Clearly it didn't start in 2008.  Answers please.....we're waiting...

Ahoy -

As Somali pirates have captured the world’s attention over the past week, I’ve been up to my neck in pirates of a different sort.  Greenpeace got a tip that several Spanish owned vessels blacklisted for engaging in pirate fishing were en route to Singapore to offload illegally caught Chilean sea bass, or Patagonian toothfish.  We alerted U.S. authorities at NOAA, the Coast Guard, and the State Department, each of which deals with pirate fishing.  All three agencies were helpful and responsive, sharing the information we provided with other governments, updating databases, and even contacting the Singapore Navy Maritime Operations Center.

The investigation is still unfolding, but it looks like at least one or two of the vessels offloaded a considerable amount of illegal sea bass before local authorities were able to respond.  In fact, it is not clear that local authorities planned to respond at all – Singapore is not a party to CCAMLR, the Antarctic treaty under which the vessels were blacklisted.

While these pirate fishing vessels may seem to have little connection with the pirates plaguing ships passing through the Gulf of Aden, these issues are in fact tied together by more than a word most of us associate with eye patches and parrots.  In all oceans of the world, vessels flying under flags of convenience – registered to countries with little or no concern for what the ships are used for – and owned by shady operators based in countries such as Spain, China, or Korea, pirates illegally catch enormous quantities of fish.  

Somalia is a prime example of where pirate fishing thrives – a poor country with weak governance and no capacity to manage or patrol their own waters.  And as is often the case, the most impacted people are local fishermen, who can no longer feed their families after foreign pirate fishermen have literally stolen all the fish.  When deprived of their livelihoods, few breadwinners in any culture would be willing to quietly allow their families to starve.  So it is not surprising that some have resorted to illegal activity.  In addition to hijacking ships, unemployed fishermen in Ghana have been known to become wildlife poachers, adding new threats to already endangered populations of hippos, lions, and leopards.

It would be ridiculous to call the Somali pirates Robin Hoods when they hijack cargo ships carrying aid for starving people.  At the same time, there’s something disturbing about the international community failing to intervene when wealthy European owners of pirate fishing vessels destroy the livelihoods of coastal African communities and demanding military intervention when impoverished communities resort to violence.  Even now, European companies are illegally dumping nuclear waste off the coast of Somalia, and there have been reports of whole villages being affected when barrels have washed up on shore.

In early May, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization will meet and hopefully finalize a binding global agreement to address pirate fishing.  The US has played a very positive role in negotiations so far, but Japan and Korea have balked at some of the measures that are necessary to get the job done.   If there is a silver lining to the Somali pirate story, it may be that it helps wake policy makers up to the fact that pirate fishing creates far reaching impacts and must be dealt with immediately.  

Yet another reminder that we live on Planet Ocean – and that the health of our marine ecosystems is intimately linked to the health of humankind.

For the oceans - 

John Hocevar

Today, Guardian writer Ed Pilkington took a fresh swat at Governor Sarah Palin's use and defense of Exxon-funded junk science on polar bears in the State of Alaska's attempts to to kill the listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.

We have covered the evolution of this story on ExxonSecrets for over a year here and here with links to articles and documents of interest.

Much has been made of Palin's denial of global warming since she was nominated as the GOP Veep candidate, but no one has questioned her credibility for using 'research' that was funded by ExxonMobil, American Petroleum Institute and Charles Koch Foundation.

We are wondering if Gwen Ifill of PBS will ask Ms. Palin a pointed question tomorrow? or if Senator Biden has read the Guardian story?

Tom Kizza at the Anchorage Daily News has followed this story the best, filing two good articles earlier in the year here and here.

This classic ExxonSecrets map of the junk science authors from the Dyck, Soon, et al article shows once again the tentacles of the Denial Machine (see page 9 for acknowledgement of funding from Exxon and friends).  Palin's goon squad cited the Dyck, Soon paper 6 times and even attached a copy of the article (pre-publication) to their 49 page submission to the Department of Interior.

All the background documents can be found on Greenpeace Investigations:

• Exxon funded junk science
• rebuttal by real polar bear scientists
• Alaska's submissions to Department of Interior

No reporters have questioned Exxon or API about funding this research and no one has gotten the scientists themselves on the record as to how much money they got from Exxon and friends and the marching orders attached to that funding.

 

In a new Greenpeace investigation of more than 500 congressional lobbying records of the chemical industry and allied businesses researchers identified 238 lobbyists who registered to lobby against strong chemical security legislation in 2007. With at total lobbying budget of $130 million dollars, Greenpeace estimates that the industry averaged about $1 million a month to forestall strong chemical security legislation.

The Greenpeace report, as well as supporting documents, can be found here

 

The report documents multiple layers of a quiet but extensive lobbying campaign to prevent strong regulations and to keep chemical users from switching to safer, more secure chemicals and processes. The report includes 20 trade associations such as the chemical manufacturer's American Chemistry Council (ACC) as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 30 companies including Dow Chemical Company, and ExxonMobil and high priced lobby firms such as Hogan & Hartson.


Since 9/11, the chemical industry lobby has succeeded in delaying the enactment of permanent, comprehensive chemical security legislation. In 2006 a 740 word temporary law was enacted with the expectation that Congress would revisit the issue in 2007.

Jack Gerard, CEO of the ACC summed up the chemical lobby's agenda, “We believe the Department of Homeland Security should have the ability to put these regs in place. Let's let the dust settle, and then a few years down the road let's take a look at it."

In contrast the Association of American Railroads recently issued a strong statement on ultra-hazardous chemicals: "It is time for the nation’s big chemical companies to stop making the dangerous chemicals that can be replaced by safer substitutes or new technologies currently in the marketplace…And if they won’t do it, Congress should do it for them in the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2008."

On March 6th, the House Homeland Security Committee adopted a comprehensive bill (H.R. 5577). The House Energy and Commerce Committee which is expected to take up this legislation soon and has scheduled a hearing for May 15th. To avoid a renewal of the hopelessly weak temporary statute, Congress must pass a permanent law this year.

The Heartland Institute has emerged over the last year as the ringleader of global warming denial, challenging Al Gore to pointless debates and now hosting what is possibly the largest Denial cnvergence ever- we'll call it

Denial-a-palooza 2008...

This two day festival of stuff and nonsense, might be better suited as an opening act for Monty Python's Spamalot, playing down the street on Broadway. The conference is sponsored and attended by the small and shrinking tribe of diehard deniers who question the veracity of the global warming crisis and attack those who are trying to do something about it. 

But where on earth is Exxon?  diehard sponsor of said organizations...  A few years back, Exxon would have been giving the keynote speech at a show like this, or at least behind the scenes pulling puppet strings.  In fact many companies would have been eager to endorse this counterinsurgency.  Not now apparently.

Lost

The train has left the station, but they’ll always have each other, huddled grumpy on the platform.  Well, a little better than the train platform, this week’s conference is being held at the quite pricey Marriot Marquis right on Times Square in New York City.  Someone with deep pockets must be paying Heartland’s bills these days.  We wonder who?

The subtitle of the innocous and official sounding 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the pleading“Can you hear us now? Global Warming Is Not a Crisis?  There is a megaphone on the cover. While on its face, this is a conference about global warming science, there are well populated conference tracks on Climate Change Politics and  Economics.  To us here at ExxonSecrets, there is no difference between doubting and denying the science and attacking policies to solve it.  The overwhelming and unsettling conclusions of the scientific community on global warming have imparted an urgency and inspiration to the policy community around the world.  If you argue we should do nothing, or do less, you ARE denying the science.  There is no doubt about it.

 

What Inspires Them?

One wonders how these hardy deniers keep it up in the face of the momentum that has finally arrived.  Or perhaps that is exactly what inspires them.  This is the final battle for this crowd.  It is a crisis for them, a crisis of lost credibility and corporate backing. After at least 15 years of success with tactics of delay and denial and distraction, they are losing badly. 

We are finally on the cusp of passing national global warming regulations in the US (hopefully when we get a new president).  Numerous major corporations have endorsed that goal.  Still more corporations are moving ahead with corporate carbon reduction goals and moving into the market for clean technology. Just what do these denial professionals think of the likes of turncoats Walmart, General Electric, GM, Alcoa, Fed-Ex, Coca-Cola, Bank of America to name a few, who have acknowledged the threat, and either endorsed regulatory approaches or and taken measures to shift investment and business practices?

States and local communities across the country have moved even faster than the Fed to pass regulations and regional carbon reduction efforts.  What do these deniers think of Arnold "the Global Warming Terminator" out in California?

And just what do they think of the fact that our next president, Obama, Clinton and McCain WILL tackle global warming one way or another.  They are all speaking about global warming as the number one environmental threat, and speaking about the economic opportunity in finding solutions?  No wonder Rush Limbaugh and the conservatives hate McCain, he went to the Arctic with Hillary a few years ago to see global warming damage firsthand with the scientists.  McCain has been the unlikely Republican stalwart on global warming since 2000.

So Who Is Here?

There are weathermen, PR flacks, pundits, some scientists as well.  Some fifty organizations are co-sponsors.  Heartland, the host, has asserted on its website and in the program that “No corporate funding was used to support this conference.”  One wonders why they are so insistent on stating this.  Until a few years ago, these groups would proudly proclaim that they were supported by great American corporations (without disclosing their funders).

We've done an ExxonSecrets deluxe map of those we know about.  We have all the cosponsors on the left side, the 50 some odd speakers down the middle and the other organizations they are linked to down the right.

We have data linking some $7.5 Million in Exxon funding (98-06) to many of the prominent cosponsors along with the Heartland Institute.  Maybe Exxon opted out of Heartland’s workplan for 2008 or stipulated that it wouldn’t sponsor this conference?  Again, why are they being so defensive about corporate funding?

We know that a few of the conference cosponsors were dropped by Exxon like rotten hot potatoes in 2006:
Competitive Enterprise Institute,
Center for Defense of Free Enterprise,
Independent Institute
Free Enterprise Education Institute the precursor to Steve Milloy’s Free Enterprise Action Fund

But 10 conference co-sponsors received a total of $782,500 from Exxon in 2006, the latest year for which Exxon has revealed its handouts.

The preface of the conference program claims 400 people will attend, including the 100 or so assorted speakers and panelists.  The featured attendees include PR flacks, pundits, thinktankers, and a small handful of the old-school doctors of denial like Singer, Seitz and Micheals, a few ex-weatherman and even a comedian, not kidding.  There are profiles of the 50 some odd people we know on  ExxonSecrets wiki and DeSmog has posted some detailed profiles here.

Freedom?!

The title of ABC’s John Stossel’s closing address on Tuesday is "Freedom and Its Enemies”  The conference must have something to do with “freedom” or more specifically “free enterprise”, which translates to freedom for corporations.  There are five cosponsoring organizations with free in their names -The Center for Defense of Free Enterprise, Frontiers of Freedom, Free Enterprise Action Fund, The Freedom Foundation of Minnesota, The Free Market Foundation (from S. Africa).  

We will report on this mess over the next couple of days.  Stay tuned.

Over at DeSmogBlog today they picked up on the news of Exxon's quarterly earnings report...something we all look forward to...

The profiteers fiddle while the economy crumbles

DeSmog's details and fine calculator work:

ExxonMobil, everyone's favorite oil company, is set to announce 4th quarter
earnings of $10.37 billion - a paltry $111 million a day.

Expected annual earnings for ExxonMobil in 2007 are a whopping $39 billion -

or about $106 million a day,

$4.4 million an hour and

$73,000 a second.

And now Bush and the Congress want to put a "Economic Stimulus Package" in your pocket - $600 per person - so you can go put it right in Exxon's pocket the next time you fill up... hmm Exxon's economy seems to be stimulated quite nicely already

 

As the Fish and Wildlife Service misses its deadline this week to finish its decision on listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act... we wonder if the Exxon-funded study published last summer and referenced by the State of Alaska in its opposition to FWA action might have slowed them up...shame if indeed that is the case.

Speaking of which, the Governor of Alaska published a Op-Ed in the NY Times over the weekend vigorously opposing listing the polar bear with an inaccurate assessment of things.  A nice editorial last week by the Times must have triggered the Governor's response...

We did an expanded treatment of the Exxon Polar Bear mess here, including Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina's request for information from Exxon on its funding of skeptic science. Don't miss the suggested unanswered questions at the end...

One additional nugget was the quote by an Exxon spokes recently.  In response to Gore pointing out Exxon funding of the network that supports climate denial scientists, the Washington Times reported:

"Exxon Mobil spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories. " Walton stated, "Recycling of that kind of discredited conspiracy theory is nothing more than a distraction from the real challenge facing society and the energy industry..."

Distractions indeed...some people create distractions for a living...and maybe Mr. Walton should check with the Exxon Secret Payroll department before making such declarative statements next time.

See Inhofe post below this one for more on that episode....

Now that Bali is done, things are moving forward on the global policy front.  The Bush Administration was sent packing back to Washington, tail firmly between legs but not without weakening the agreement.  The fight now comes back to Capitol Hill where there are efforts afoot to try to craft more global warming legislation in 2008. And apparently the Denial Machine has also come back to DC where it tries to dig trenches in front of any potential momentum and progress.

Sen. James "Hoax" Inhofe, the Archbishop of Denial, and his alter boy Marc Morano (formerly of the Exxon funded Media Research Center), today released a report through the Environment and Public Works minority website, with the headline:

Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 - Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Looking through Inhofe's list of disputers we find a large number of familiar names.

 
Here's an interactive ExxonSecrets map of the 35 plus we have already data on. 

 

These individuals have been linked through the years with:

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Tech Central Station - set up by Exxon's operatives at DCI Group

Heartland Institute

Cato Institute

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow

Frasier Institute

The Annapolis Center

The George Marshall Institute

...and numerous other Exxon-funded groups who have together received millions of dollars since 1998 from the corporation.

We'll now have to start researching the others named here and see who and what makes them tick.  Its interesting that the Inhofe list includes a String Theorist and a slew of TV weathermen, they have recruited far and wide.  For many of the folks listed and their words quoted, one wonders if they are outright skeptics, or just questioning certain conclusions or lines of reasoning - the normal scientific process as DotEarth noted today. 

 
We also wonder if the Inhofe 400 share the conclusions of this report or the author's overt agenda to delay and derail political action on climate.  Time will tell as they Google themselves and find their names linked to the tail end of Exxon's Denial Machine.

An op-ed is making the rounds in papers today penned by veteren global warming denier David Deming, Adjunct Scholar of the National Center for Policy Analysis. 

The op-ed catalogs a long list of unusual cold weather events in 2007, including the recent giant ice storm that crippled the central US.  These extreme weather events are cited as solid evidence that global warming is bunk, and since cold weather is obviously bad for humans, therefore policies to control global warming are misguided. 

Clearly behind the curve in reading his latest copy of the Deniers' fashion magazine, Deming doesn't realize that it's no longer vogue to deny the science outright, and that most of his pals are taking more of a bumper shot approach - admitting that warming is happening, but that it might not be that bad or that we should focus on adaptation...

Well thank goodness for old-school deniers like Deming still sticking to their guns! 

The last line of Deming's essay, "Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo."  really sums up how completely and dangerously out of touch with reality this crowd is.  Wow, we have a lot of work left.

The reality, again, is global warming doesn't mean uniform "warming" everywhere on earth.  In fact, what scientists have come to know, is adding heat to the weather system means chaotic and unpredictable weather, with average temps that trend warmer overall.

NCPA has received at least $465,900 from Exxon since 1998, including $75,000 per year for the past several years.

Speaking of animals that like things cold...we expect an answer out of the Bush Administration any day on their plan to protect (or not) the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.  The NCPA chimed in on polar bears this past May with a "Brief Analysis" by H. Sterling Burnett, citing "A new NCPA study by Dr. David Legates" which turns out to be an inaccurate assessment of ice dynamics combined with a weak analysis of bear population dynamics...Funny how the former State Climatologist of Delaware is suddenly a polar bear expert... how convenient.  Legates was also a co-author of the polar bear study we discussed here.