Hill Heat

Google is no longer simply the Internet’s search engine. The company now is building Google+ into a diverse, curated-garden experience with the goal of social media domination that keeps user traffic within Google’s walls. In recent years the company has significantly ramped up its engagement in national politics, led by former Republican representative Susan Molinari.

The revamped Google is now joining the ranks of the top corporate funders of the climate-denial movement. In 2013, Google has held a fundraiser for Sen. Jim Inhofe (“Global warming is a hoax”) at its DC headquarters, been the top funder of the annual dinner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (“CO2: We Call It Life”), and joined the American Legislative Exchange Council (“Even substantial global warming is likely to be of benefit to the United States”).

In response, hundreds of people have flooded the Google+ page for the Google DC headquarters with one-star reviews. The page also now includes photographs from the protest organized by Forecast the Facts during the Google DC fundraiser for Inhofe.

This digital activism is only part of a 150,000-person strong campaign led by Forecast the Facts with support from Credo, Greenpeace, Sum Of Us, and other groups. The coalition has organized on-the-street protests of Google in DC, Mountain View, and New York City.

Nevada Congressman Mark Amodei of the Second District rejects the scientific fact of anthropogenic global warming. In a recent letter to a constituent, Rep. Amodei (R-Nev.) claimed that scientists “argue that these temperature increases would incur regardless due to the warming of the center of the earth.” His comments were published by Daily Kos.

“The issue of climate change is very controversial and many scientists disagree as to its causes and how to handle it. I recognize that some scientists believe that global warming is caused by failed environmental practices; however, others argue that these temperature increases would incur regardless due to the warming of the center of the earth. I do not believe it is appropriate for the federal government to advocate one position over the other. Since, we do not know much about long-term climate change, I do agree we must have an unbiased research effort funded by both the government and the private sector to answer the essential questions about climate change.”

In reality, the carbon-dioxide greenhouse effect is a physical fact known since the 1800s. The only scientifically plausible systematic explanation for the rapid warming of the planetary climate since 1950 is industrial greenhouse pollution. Surface warming from the earth’s radioactive core amounts to only 0.087 watt per square meter, whereas incoming solar radiation provides 236 watts per square meter. Because of the hundreds of billions of tons of industrial carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases has increased from 1 W/m2 to 2.4 W/m2. The global climate is continuing to warm, with every decade since the 1970s warmer than the last, and the impacts of global warming are accelerating faster than scientists projected.

Rep. Amodei is a member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, sitting on the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands and the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

The complete constituent letter of Rep. Amodei’s rejection of climate science is below.

Arizona Congressman Matt Salmon of the Fifth District makes light of the scientific fact of anthropogenic global warming. In an April 26, 2013 interview with the Arizona Republic, Rep. Salmon (R-Ariz.) said global warming is “coming from the hot air coming out of Washington.”

“I found the source of global warming is coming from the hot air coming out of Washington.”

Rep. Salmon has taken the Koch Industries’ “No Climate Tax” pledge and voted repeatedly against climate action.

In reality, the carbon-dioxide greenhouse effect is a physical fact known since the 1800s. The only scientifically plausible systematic explanation for the rapid warming of the planetary climate since 1950 is industrial greenhouse pollution. Because of the hundreds of billions of tons of industrial carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, the global climate is continuing to warm, with every decade since the 1970s warmer than the last, and the impacts of global warming are accelerating faster than scientists projected.

Freshman Pennsylvania Congressman Scott Perry of the Fourth District rejects the scientific fact of anthropogenic global warming. In a September 20, 2012 debate, then-candidate Perry (R-Penn.) said he “take[s] exception” that global warming is “man-made” and is “concerned” that the “theory” of global warming is not “proven.” His comments were transcribed by the York Daily Record’s Ed Mahon for the paper’s political blog.

“I do believe global warming is occurring. …However, I do take exception, whether it’s man-made or not. I learned in public school, the scientific theory. …You have a theory and it has to be proven. And I’m concerned anytime that a nation, or the world, makes up policy based on a theory that … has gained consensus but” does not have proof, he said.

In reality, the carbon-dioxide greenhouse effect is a physical fact known since the 1800s. The only scientifically plausible systematic explanation – what the word “theory” means in scientific jargon, despite Rep. Perry’s confusion – for the rapid warming of the planetary climate since 1950 is industrial greenhouse pollution. Because of the hundreds of billions of tons of industrial carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, the global climate is continuing to warm, with every decade since the 1970s warmer than the last, and the impacts of global warming are accelerating faster than scientists projected.

Pennsylvania Congressman Keith Rothfus of the 12th District rejects the scientific fact of anthropogenic global warming. In a 2010 interview unearthed by Hill Heat, then-candidate Rothfus (R-Penn.) said he was “dubious” that global warming was “man-made” or a “fact.”

“I do not believe it’s man-made, and I am not convinced that it’s a fact. I think the science is still out. I think for the last 15 years we haven’t had any warming. I think you go back when we had a medieval warm period, where we were growing crops in Greenland. We could do that maybe if we kept warming up over the next 20 to 30 years. I do think the jury’s out on that. I’m very dubious as to whether or not this is what they call anthropogenic, man-made. When you talk about 280 parts per billion [sic] I think of carbon, these are very small amounts.”

Watch:

In reality, the carbon-dioxide greenhouse effect is a physical fact known since the 1800s. The only scientifically plausible explanation for the rapid warming of the planetary climate since 1950 is industrial greenhouse pollution. Rothfus was off on his estimation of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by a factor of 1000. Carbon dioxide levels have risen from pre-industrial concentrations of 280 parts per million to the present-day 400 parts per million, a 40 percent increase. Because of the hundreds of billions of tons of industrial carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, the global climate is continuing to warm, with every decade since the 1970s warmer than the last, and the impacts of global warming are accelerating faster than scientists projected.

The so-called Medieval Warm Period was a period between the 10th to 15th centuries of higher than average solar radiation and lower than average volcanic activity where some parts of the world, including Greenland, were about as warm as have been in the past decade. During that period the global climate was significantly cooler than the present day.

Montana Congressman Steve Daines believes that there is “compelling” evidence that solar cycles, not industrial pollution, are causing global warming. In a 2012 radio interview unearthed by Hill Heat, then-candidate Daines (R-Mont.) details to NPR’s Sally Mauk his version of the “sun causes global warming” canard:

Q: You mentioned that there is debate about whether human activity is contributing to climate change, the burning of fossil fuels particularly. My question is where do you come down on that debate. Is it, or is it not?

DAINES: I think the jury’s still out in my opinion, Sally, on that. I’ve seen some very good data that says there are other contributing factors there, certainly looking at the effect the sun has, and it’s the solar cycles versus CO2 and greenhouse gases. So I look at this as saying I want to keep an open mind on this, but I’m not convinced. I’m a skeptic, I hear sometimes on both sides, because I think they’re using their agenda here just for political points here rather than looking objectively at the data. I think there’s compelling data on both sides of the equation now, for and against, that I think we need to continue to look and study this before making firm policy-type decisions on it.

Listen:

In reality, the carbon-dioxide greenhouse effect is a physical fact known since the 1800s. The only scientifically plausible explanation for the rapid warming of the planetary climate since 1950 is industrial greenhouse pollution. The variations in solar warming and other natural influences, scientists have found, have had a cooling influence entirely swamped out by human-induced warming. Because of the hundreds of billions of tons of industrial carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, the global climate is continuing to warm, with every decade since the 1970s warmer than the last, and the impacts of global warming are accelerating faster than scientists projected.

Full interview audio is available here.

North Dakota Congressman Kevin Cramer believes that anthropogenic global warming is a “fraudulent science,” the result of a scientific conspiracy to promote wind farms and carbon taxes at the expense of cheap coal. In a February 4, 2012 radio interview unearthed by Hill Heat, then-candidate Cramer (R-N.D.) details to KNOX’s Jarrod Thomas his version of the “Climategate” conspiracy theory:

“These mandates and these wind farms are all based on this fraudulent science from the EPA, meaning their claim that CO2 is a pollutant and is causing global warming. I’m sure you’re familiar with one of the leading climate research centers in the world there at East Anglia University in England, the Hadley Research Centre. The director, Phil Jones, his emails, he admitted that he was falsifying temperature data. The reason he had to do is because was the data was showing the global climate is actually declining in temperature, temperatures were going down. He was overlaying higher temperatures on the real data to show that it was actually rising. We know the globe is cooling. Number one, we know that. So the idea that CO2 is somehow causing global warming is on its face fraudulent.”

Listen:

In reality, the carbon-dioxide greenhouse effect is a physical fact known since the 1800s. The stolen emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (the Hadley Research Centre is a separate institution) do not provide support for Cramer’s libelous attacks on Dr. Jones. The global climate is continuing to warm, with every decade since the 1970s warmer than the last, and the impacts of global warming are accelerating faster than scientists projected.

Rep. Cramer is a member of the House Committee on Science.

MP3 file. Full interview audio is available here.

On Thursday, July 18, Howard Shelanski, White House Office of Management Budget’s Administrator for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, will testify before a hearting of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, on OIRA’s “social cost of carbon” calculations. The social cost of carbon has been used in recent rulemakings by the Department of Energy and other agencies to estimate the economic damages from future carbon pollution. Below and attached is his prepared testimony:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I was recently confirmed as the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and I am honored to be serving in this role. I look forward to speaking with you about the social cost of carbon.

When I refer to the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) I mean the values used to calculate the monetary costs and benefits of incremental changes in the volume of carbon emissions in a given year. The social cost of carbon includes, for example, changes in net agricultural productivity and human health, property damage from increased flood risk, energy system costs, and the value of ecosystem services lost because of climate change.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to use the best available scientific, technical, economic, and other information to quantify the costs and benefits of rules. Rigorous evaluation of costs and benefits has been a core tenet of the rulemaking process for decades through Republican and Democratic Administrations. This fundamental principle of using the best available information underpins the Administration’s efforts to develop and update its estimates of the social cost of carbon. Indeed, cost benefit analysis better informs decision makers if it takes into account the current and future damages from carbon pollution.

Over 10,000 individuals have signed a petition calling for the cancellation of Google’s July 11 fundraiser for Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.). Since the selection of former Republican representative Susan Molinari to head its lobbying operations last year, Google has dramatically increased its support for anti-science politicians and front groups, from Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to the Koch-founded Mercatus Center.

Forecast the Facts and Greenpeace activists will be delivering the petition signatures to Google Washington headquarters during the lunchtime fundraiser, and holding a protest livestreamed at 12:45 PM by We Act Radio.

The Forecast the Facts petition, addressed to Google CEO Larry Page, makes a straightforward request:

Cancel your July 11 fundraiser for Sen. Jim Inhofe and pledge to never fund climate deniers again.

An anonymous Google spokesperson responded to media inquiries saying the fundraiser would go forward, because although Google and Inhofe “disagree on climate change policy,” they “share an interest” in Google’s 100-employee, $700 million data center in Pryor, Oklahoma. Last year, Google earned the top spot on Greenpeace’s Cool IT board for its commitment to renewable energy and energy efficiency to power its massive computer farms.

With the admirable goal of creating a “better web that is better for the environment,” Google has cultivated a reputation for working to support scientific inquiry and pursuing environmental sustainability. Google’s co-founders, Page and Sergey Brin, continue to profess that Google operates by the corporate motto, “Don’t be evil.”

This reputation will be rendered meaningless if the fundraiser goes forward and large contributions continue to be made to anti-science defenders of unregulated carbon pollution such as Sen. Inhofe and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

President Barack Obama’s speech on climate change may augur a new era of liability for carbon polluters with respect to climate and weather damages. In his address at Georgetown University on Tuesday, the president laid out the logic that ties greenhouse emissions to economic costs being borne today:

Global warming influences all weather events: “in a world that’s warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by a warming planet”

There are economic costs from extreme weather: “Americans across the country are already paying the price of inaction in insurance premiums, state and local taxes, and the costs of rebuilding and disaster relief”

Global warming is caused by human activity: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists . . . have acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”

Carbon pollution will continue to increase weather damages: “The hard truth is carbon pollution has built up in our atmosphere for decades now. And even if we Americans do our part, the planet will slowly keep warming for some time to come. The seas will slowly keep rising and storms will get more severe, based on the science.”

President Obama highlighted Superstorm Sandy as a specific example of a multi-billion-dollar disaster exacerbated by carbon pollution, noting “[t]he fact that sea level in New York, in New York Harbor, are now a foot higher than a century ago—that didn’t cause Hurricane Sandy, but it certainly contributed to the destruction that left large parts of our mightiest city dark and underwater.”

The $51 billion Sandy federal relief bill was an emergency spending bill that was limited by the sequestration cuts. A majority of Republicans called for pay-fors for the bill. No attempt was made to derive funding from greenhouse emitters or financiers—such as those who make up the wealthiest residents of the New York City region.

Currently, disaster relief and flood and drought insurance programs are treated as discretionary or emergency spending that goes against state and federal budgets. No civil or criminal liability is assumed by emitters of greenhouse gases. The president’s remarks may indicate a new effort to have carbon-producing and financing industries bear the responsibility for the societal costs of extreme weather, sea level rise, and climatic disruptions.