Space Ring Could Shade Earth and Stop Global Warming

Space Ring Could Shade Earth and Stop Global Warming:
http://www.livescience.com/technolog..._solution.html

Inject Sulfur into Air to Battle Global Warming:
http://www.livescience.com/environme...ct_sulfur.html

Longer Airline Flights Proposed to Combat Global Warming:
http://www.livescience.com/environme...l_climate.html

All About Global Warming:
http://www.livescience.com/globalwarming/

The visible SOCIOPATHY of Reichwinger

Apparently you are not qualified to diagnose your own evident
sociopathy.

I conveniently provided a webpage with the most conspicuous symptoms
listed: you don't need them all -- just three is sufficient for a
positive diagnosis.

http://h2-pv.us/Bush-Hitler/Blogspot/Sociopathy.html
DSM-IV-TR Handbook of Differential Diagnosis
by Michael B. First, Allen, MD Frances, Harold Alan, MD Pincus
Paperback: 247 pages
Publisher: American Psychiatric Association; 1st edition (January,
2002)
ISBN: 1585620548

SOCIOPATHY
The DSM-IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders,
defines anti-social personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of
disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since
age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful
behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds
for arrest
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases,
or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or
assaults
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

In this case, we see symptoms #3, lack of future
planning, #2 lying, #4 aggressiveness towards those who can't stop
your
killing them from their position of vulnerability, #5 reckless,
disregard for those damaged by your words and acts, #6 no accepting
responsibility for what you are doing, #7 no remorse, and #1 is known
that you accept the criminal frauds of others and use them to your
purposes, making you a known accessory after the fact.

Did I leave anything out?

wrote in message
oups.com...
Space Ring Could Shade Earth and Stop Global Warming:
http://www.livescience.com/technolog..._solution.html

Inject Sulfur into Air to Battle Global Warming:
http://www.livescience.com/environme...ct_sulfur.html

Longer Airline Flights Proposed to Combat Global Warming:
http://www.livescience.com/environme...l_climate.html

All About Global Warming:
http://www.livescience.com/globalwarming/

What kind of ****ing moron would want to make the world COLDER?

GP

On Apr 6, 5:45 pm, "Godzilla Pimp" wrote:

What kind of ****ing moron would want to make the world COLDER?

GP

The visible SOCIOPATHY of Reichwinger

Apparently you are not qualified to diagnose your own evident
sociopathy.

I conveniently provided a webpage with the most conspicuous symptoms
listed: you don't need them all -- just three is sufficient for a
positive diagnosis.

http://h2-pv.us/Bush-Hitler/Blogspot/Sociopathy.html
DSM-IV-TR Handbook of Differential Diagnosis
by Michael B. First, Allen, MD Frances, Harold Alan, MD Pincus
Paperback: 247 pages
Publisher: American Psychiatric Association; 1st edition (January,
2002)
ISBN: 1585620548

SOCIOPATHY
The DSM-IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders,
defines anti-social personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of
disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since
age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful
behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds
for arrest
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases,
or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or
assaults
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

In this case, we see symptoms #3, lack of future
planning, #2 lying, #4 aggressiveness towards those who can't stop
your
killing them from their position of vulnerability, #5 reckless,
disregard for those damaged by your words and acts, #6 no accepting
responsibility for what you are doing, #7 no remorse, and #1 is known
that you accept the criminal frauds of others and use them to your
purposes, making you a known accessory after the fact.

Did I leave anything out?

"Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck" wrote in
message oups.com...
On Apr 6, 5:45 pm, "Godzilla Pimp" wrote:

What kind of ****ing moron would want to make the world COLDER?

GP

The visible SOCIOPATHY of Reichwinger

Apparently you are not qualified to diagnose your own evident
sociopathy.

I conveniently provided a webpage with the most conspicuous symptoms
listed: you don't need them all -- just three is sufficient for a
positive diagnosis.

http://h2-pv.us/Bush-Hitler/Blogspot/Sociopathy.html
DSM-IV-TR Handbook of Differential Diagnosis
by Michael B. First, Allen, MD Frances, Harold Alan, MD Pincus
Paperback: 247 pages
Publisher: American Psychiatric Association; 1st edition (January,
2002)
ISBN: 1585620548

SOCIOPATHY
The DSM-IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders,
defines anti-social personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of
disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since
age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful
behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds
for arrest
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases,
or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or
assaults
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

In this case, we see symptoms #3, lack of future
planning, #2 lying, #4 aggressiveness towards those who can't stop
your
killing them from their position of vulnerability, #5 reckless,
disregard for those damaged by your words and acts, #6 no accepting
responsibility for what you are doing, #7 no remorse, and #1 is known
that you accept the criminal frauds of others and use them to your
purposes, making you a known accessory after the fact.

Did I leave anything out?

And what kind of SUPER ****ing moron would want to spend TRILLIONS of
dollars to make the world COLDER?

GP

wrote:
Space Ring Could Shade Earth and Stop Global Warming:
http://www.livescience.com/technolog..._solution.html

Inject Sulfur into Air to Battle Global Warming:
http://www.livescience.com/environme...ct_sulfur.html

Longer Airline Flights Proposed to Combat Global Warming:
http://www.livescience.com/environme...l_climate.html

All About Global Warming:
http://www.livescience.com/globalwarming/


I still like the zillion little reflective mylar balloons at high altitude.
If nothing else, that would be dirt cheap.

Pat

****bag Adulterer McCain wrote:
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases,


Hmm...well...if you say so, Mr. ****bag. :-)

Pat

On Apr 7, 5:22 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
****bag Adulterer McCain wrote:
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases,

Hmm...well...if you say so, Mr. ****bag. :-)

Pat

The CORRUPT RICHARD S. LINDZEN, DESPICABLE OUTCAST OF SCIENCE

(Climatology) DOCTOR Richard Lindzen speaks about passive smoke and
health, Next up, prominent ROOFER discusses faults in modern Quantum
Mechanics Theory.
=========================
Philip Morris
Passive Smoking: How Great A Hazard?
Date: 19910700/P
Length: 48 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046323437-3484.html

Page 36: cyb09e00
Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has
emphasized that problems will arise where we will need to depend on
scientific judgement, and by ruining our credibility now we leave
society with a resource of some importance diminished. The
implementation of public policies must be based on good science, to
the degree that it is available, and not on emotion or on political
needs. Those who develop such policies must not stray from sound
scientific investigations, based only on accepted scientific
methodologies. Such has not always been the case with environmental
tobacco smoke.

=========================


In 1993 documents appeared in secret tobacco conspiracy file cabinets
about a fake science conference organized by the documented corrupt S.
Fred Singer. This meeting in Washington, DC, was facetiously titled
"Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process", funded by two
lung-killer industries tobacco and asbestos, and Lindzen was a
prominant hoaxer at this event. Lindzen has been paid in a CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY to defraud the public on the immanent dangers of Global
Warming, just as he participated with co-conspirators to aid Singer's
science hoaxes on behalf of tobacco and asbestos SERIAL MURDERER
CORPORATIONS.

Every single fact below can stand up in court in the trial of Lindzen
for FELONY CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. Much more incriminating evidence will
be adduced at trial.


Google search engine reports 164 results looking for Richard S.
Lindzen AND "Washington Times" owned by the convicted felon Sun Myung
Moon. Moon has hosted many fake science conferences to exploit for
propaganda purposes. Singer apprenteced the fake science conference
back when Singer was President of the moonie "Washingon Institute for
Values in Public Policy". No records exist in public archives on what
Moon paid Singer as president of the Wash Inst, but here is a link
showing how generous Moon is to one successor president after Singer's
term -- $142,708/yr salary.
http://documents.guidestar.org/1998/...293998-1-9.pdf

Moon is master of money laundering and subversive payoffs -- we will
never know who all he paid and how much they pocketed. We do know that
Google search engine finds 152 webpages linking Moon AND Lindzen.
There is an unseemly association between a science corruptor and a
known identified corrupt Lindzen: 314 webpage results for Lindzen AND
"Sun Myung Moon" OR "Washington Times".

http://tobaccodocuments.org/mayo_clinic/2025498346.html SUBJECT: The
Heidelberg Appeal Date: 23 Mar 1993

BACKGROUND

This coalition has its roots in the asbestos industry, but has become
a broad and independent movement in a littlc bit less than a year. We
are involved with the coalition through the French NMA, but we are
being discreet because some of the coalition members are concerned
about a "tobacco connection".

Our strategy is to continue discreetly supporting the coalition and
help it grow in size and credibility. The timing is particularly
opportune because of Bill Clinton's sympathy to the messages of the
coalition (see attached IHT article).

If you would like more information on how to help support thc
movement, pIease contact me or Tom Borelli on the US side.




http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2502284041-4042.html
(Philip Morris Documents)
Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process Semi-Final Program
930524 - 930525 the Madison Hotel 15th and M Streets, Nw Washington,
D.C. Date: 19930525/D
Length: 2 pages

Persons identified in pulling off this science hoax included: CORRUPT
Michael Fumento, CORRUPT Michael Gough, CORRUPT Robert Jastrow,
CORRUPT Michael Salomon, CORRUPT Robert Tollison, and the arch-
CORRUPTOR S. Fred Singer ringleader.


http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...ard_S._Lindzen

Richard S. Lindzen

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a distinguished professor of meteorology at
MIT, is one of a small band of global warming skeptics used by
industry to undermine and delay any kind of regulatory action meant to
address the looming environmental crisis.

Lindzen was reported in 1995 to "charges oil and coal interests $2,500
a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a
Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote,
entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific
Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." [1]

According to Ross Gelbspan, Lindzen and skeptics like him -- including
Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S.
Fred Singer, among others -- "assert flatly that their science is
untainted by funding. Nevertheless, in this persistent and well-funded
campaign of [global warming] denial they have become interchangeable
ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation.
Their dissenting opinions are amplified beyond all proportion through
the media while the concerns of the dominant majority of the world's
scientific establishment are marginalized. By keeping the discussion
focused on whether there is a problem in the first place, they have
effectively silenced the debate over what to do about it." [2]

External links

* Ross Gelbspan, "The Heat is On: The warming of the world's
climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.
* Daniel Grossman, Dissent in the Maelstrom,"Scientific American,
November 2001.
* "Richard Lindzen," Wikipedia.

http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
THE HEAT IS ON:
The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial
by Ross Gelbspan.
from HARPER'S MAGAZINE/December, 1995

.... The people who run the world's oil and coal companies know that
the march of science, and of political action, may be slowed by
disinformation. In the last year and a half, one of the leading oil
industry public relations outlets, the Global Climate Coalition, has
spent more than a million dollars to downplay the threat of climate
change. It expects to spend another $850,000 on the issue next year.
Similarly, the National Coal Association spent more than $700,000 on
the global climate issue in 1992 and 1993. In 1993 alone, the American
Petroleum Institute, just one of fifty-four industry members of the
GCC, paid $1.8 million to the public relations firm of Burson-
Marsteller partly in an effort to defeat a proposed tax on fossil
fuels. For perspective, this is only slightly less than the combined
yearly expenditures on global warming of the five major environmental
groups that focus on climate issues -- about $2.1 million, according
to officials of the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists,
and the World Wildlife Fund.

For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics
-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr.
Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others -- who have proven
extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.
Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and
television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question
is hopelessly mired in unknowns. Most damaging has been their
influence on decision makers; their contrarian views have allowed
conservative Republicans such as Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R.,
Calif.) to dismiss legitimate research concerns as "liberal claptrap"
and have provided the basis for the recent round of budget cuts to
those government science programs designed to monitor the health of
the planet.

Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the
environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the
skeptics -- Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling -- were hired as expert
witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400
million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities.
[#1] ...

[#l In 1991, Western Fuels spent an estimated $250,000 to produce and
distribute a video entitled "The Greening of Planet Earth," which was
shown frequently inside the Bush White House as well as within the
governments of OPEC. In near-evangelical tones, the video promises
that a new age of agricultural abundance will result from increasing
concentrations of carbon dioxide. It portrays a world where vast areas
of desert are reclaimed by the carbon dioxide-forced growth of new
grasslands, where the earth's diminishing forests are replenished by a
nurturing atmosphere. Unfortunately, it overlooks the bugs. Experts
note that even a minor elevation in temperature would trigger an
explosion in the planet's insect population, leading to potentially
significant disruptions in food supplies from crop damage as well as
to a surge in insect-borne diseases. It appears that Western Fuels'
video fails to tell people what the termites in New Orleans may be
trying to tell them now.]

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message ...


wrote:
Space Ring Could Shade Earth and Stop Global Warming:
http://www.livescience.com/technolog..._solution.html

Inject Sulfur into Air to Battle Global Warming:
http://www.livescience.com/environme...ct_sulfur.html

Longer Airline Flights Proposed to Combat Global Warming:
http://www.livescience.com/environme...l_climate.html

All About Global Warming:
http://www.livescience.com/globalwarming/


I still like the zillion little reflective mylar balloons at high altitude.
If nothing else, that would be dirt cheap.


You won't need them for the coming ice age!

Regards

B0NZ0

"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a
degree panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences

"Global warming, at least the modern nightmare version, is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But
what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not." Dr Gareth Jones, climate researcher, Met Office
UK

On Apr 7, 8:09 pm, "BONZ0" wrote:

Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National

The denial industry -- TASSC, EXXON & Serial Killer Tobacco Lies

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...875762,00.html


For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific
bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is
inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But
who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the
strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his
new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story


ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable corporation. Its sales now
amount to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil,
and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle
climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow
doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate
change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific
consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung
cancer or that HIV causes Aids. So what's its strategy?

Article continues
The website Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company's
official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from
the company or work closely with those that have. These organisations
take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is
contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are
charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to
prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy
for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are
labelled "junk science". The findings they welcome are labelled "sound
science".

Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-
known websites and lobby groups as TechCentralStation, the Cato
Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Some of those on the list have
names that make them look like grassroots citizens' organisations or
academic bodies: the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change, for example. One or two of them, such as the Congress of
Racial Equality, are citizens' organisations or academic bodies, but
the line they take on climate change is very much like that of the
other sponsored groups. While all these groups are based in America,
their publications are read and cited, and their staff are interviewed
and quoted, all over the world.

By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the
impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those
who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if
they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these
institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging
the consensus.

This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is
bogus. On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find
one contradictory study - such as the discovery of tropospheric
cooling, which, in a garbled form, has been used by Peter Hitchens in
the Mail on Sunday - and promote it relentlessly. They will continue
to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for
example, John Christy, the author of the troposphere paper, admitted
in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial
findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these
groups, as a quick internet search will show you.

But they do not stop there. The chairman of a group called the Science
and Environmental Policy Project is Frederick Seitz. Seitz is a
physicist who in the 1960s was president of the US National Academy of
Sciences. In 1998, he wrote a document, known as the Oregon Petition,
which has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that
climate change is a myth.

The document reads as follows: "We urge the United States government
to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto,
Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed
limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the
advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare
of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is
causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating
of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in
atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the
natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Anyone with a degree was entitled to sign it. It was attached to a
letter written by Seitz, entitled Research Review of Global Warming
Evidence. The lead author of the "review" that followed Seitz's letter
is a Christian fundamentalist called Arthur B Robinson. He is not a
professional climate scientist. It was co-published by Robinson's
organisation - the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - and an
outfit called the George C Marshall Institute, which has received
$630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The other authors were Robinson's
22-year-old son and two employees of the George C Marshall Institute.
The chairman of the George C Marshall Institute was Frederick Seitz.

The paper maintained that: "We are living in an increasingly lush
environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide
increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and
animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a
wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."

It was printed in the font and format of the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences: the journal of the organisation of which
Seitz - as he had just reminded his correspondents - was once
president.

Soon after the petition was published, the National Academy of
Sciences released this statement: "The NAS Council would like to make
it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National
Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-
reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of
expert reports of the Academy."

But it was too late. Seitz, the Oregon Institute and the George C
Marshall Institute had already circulated tens of thousands of copies,
and the petition had established a major presence on the internet.
Some 17,000 graduates signed it, the majority of whom had no
background in climate science. It has been repeatedly cited - by
global-warming sceptics such as David Bellamy, Melanie Phillips and
others - as a petition by climate scientists. It is promoted by the
Exxon-sponsored sites as evidence that there is no scientific
consensus on climate change.

All this is now well known to climate scientists and
environmentalists. But what I have discovered while researching this
issue is that the corporate funding of lobby groups denying that
manmade climate change is taking place was initiated not by Exxon, or
by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel industry. It
was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris.

In December 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency published a
500-page report called Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking.
It found that "the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke
(ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial public
health impact. In adults: ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible
for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in US non-smokers.
In children: ETS exposure is causally associated with an increased
risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and
pneumonia. This report estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases
annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are
attributable to ETS."

Had it not been for the settlement of a major class action against the
tobacco companies in the US, we would never have been able to see what
happened next. But in 1998 they were forced to publish their internal
documents and post them on the internet.

Within two months of its publication, Philip Morris, the world's
biggest tobacco firm, had devised a strategy for dealing with the
passive-smoking report. In February 1993 Ellen Merlo, its senior vice-
president of corporate affairs, sent a letter to William I Campbell,
Philip Morris's chief executive officer and president, explaining her
intentions: "Our overriding objective is to discredit the EPA
report ... Concurrently, it is our objective to prevent states and
cities, as well as businesses, from passive-smoking bans."

To this end, she had hired a public relations company called APCO. She
had attached the advice it had given her. APCO warned that: "No matter
how strong the arguments, industry spokespeople are, in and of
themselves, not always credible or appropriate messengers."

So the fight against a ban on passive smoking had to be associated
with other people and other issues. Philip Morris, APCO said, needed
to create the impression of a "grassroots" movement - one that had
been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight
"overregulation". It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as
just one "unfounded fear" among others, such as concerns about
pesticides and cellphones. APCO proposed to set up "a national
coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the
public about the dangers of 'junk science'. Coalition will address
credibility of government's scientific studies, risk-assessment
techniques and misuse of tax dollars ... Upon formation of Coalition,
key leaders will begin media outreach, eg editorial board tours,
opinion articles, and brief elected officials in selected states."

APCO would found the coalition, write its mission statements, and
"prepare and place opinion articles in key markets". For this it
required $150,000 for its own fees and $75,000 for the coalition's
costs.

By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the
fake citizens' group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition. It was important, further letters stated, "to ensure that
TASSC has a diverse group of contributors"; to "link the tobacco issue
with other more 'politically correct' products"; and to associate
scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with "broader
questions about government research and regulations" - such as "global
warming", "nuclear waste disposal" and "biotechnology". APCO would
engage in the "intensive recruitment of high-profile representatives
from business and industry, scientists, public officials, and other
individuals interested in promoting the use of sound science".

By September 1993, APCO had produced a "Plan for the Public Launching
of TASSC". The media launch would not take place in "Washington, DC or
the top media markets of the country. Rather, we suggest creating a
series of aggressive, decentralised launches in several targeted local
and regional markets across the country. This approach ... avoids
cynical reporters from major media: less reviewing/challenging of
TASSC messages."

The media coverage, the public relations company hoped, would enable
TASSC to "establish an image of a national grassroots coalition". In
case the media asked hostile questions, APCO circulated a sheet of
answers, drafted by Philip Morris. The first question was:

"Isn't it true that Philip Morris created TASSC to act as a front
group for it?

"A: No, not at all. As a large corporation, PM belongs to many
national, regional, and state business, public policy, and legislative
organisations. PM has contributed to TASSC, as we have with various
groups and corporations across the country."

There are clear similarities between the language used and the
approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by
Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been
invented by Philip Morris's consultants. "Junk science" meant peer-
reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other
diseases. "Sound science" meant studies sponsored by the tobacco
industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive. Both lobbies
recognised that their best chance of avoiding regulation was to
challenge the scientific consensus. As a memo from the tobacco company
Brown and Williamson noted, "Doubt is our product since it is the best
means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of
the general public. It is also the means of establishing a
controversy." Both industries also sought to distance themselves from
their own campaigns, creating the impression that they were
spontaneous movements of professionals or ordinary citizens: the
"grassroots".

But the connection goes further than that. TASSC, the "coalition"
created by Philip Morris, was the first and most important of the
corporate-funded organisations denying that climate change is taking
place. It has done more damage to the campaign to halt it than any
other body.

TASSC did as its founders at APCO suggested, and sought funding from
other sources. Between 2000 and 2002 it received $30,000 from Exxon.
The website it has financed - JunkScience.com - has been the main
entrepot for almost every kind of climate-change denial that has found
its way into the mainstream press. It equates environmentalists with
Nazis, communists and terrorists. It flings at us the accusations that
could justifably be levelled against itself: the website claims, for
example, that it is campaigning against "faulty scientific data and
analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas". I have
lost count of the number of correspondents who, while questioning
manmade global warming, have pointed me there.

The man who runs it is called Steve Milloy. In 1992, he started
working for APCO - Philip Morris's consultants. While there, he set up
the JunkScience site. In March 1997, the documents show, he was
appointed TASSC's executive director. By 1998, as he explained in a
memo to TASSC board members, his JunkScience website was was being
funded by TASSC. Both he and the "coalition" continued to receive
money from Philip Morris. An internal document dated February 1998
reveals that TASSC took $200,000 from the tobacco company in 1997.
Philip Morris's 2001 budget document records a payment to Steven
Milloy of $90,000. Altria, Philip Morris's parent company, admits that
Milloy was under contract to the tobacco firm until at least the end
of 2005.

He has done well. You can find his name attached to letters and
articles seeking to discredit passive-smoking studies all over the
internet and in the academic databases. He has even managed to reach
the British Medical Journal: I found a letter from him there which
claimed that the studies it had reported "do not bear out the
hypothesis that maternal smoking/ passive smoking increases cancer
risk among infants". TASSC paid him $126,000 in 2004 for 15 hours'
work a week. Two other organisations are registered at his address:
the Free Enterprise Education Institute and the Free Enterprise Action
Institute. They have received $10,000 and $50,000 respectively from
Exxon. The secretary of the Free Enterprise Action Institute is Thomas
Borelli. Borelli was the Philip Morris executive who oversaw the
payments to TASSC.

Milloy also writes a weekly Junk Science column for the Fox News
website. Without declaring his interests, he has used this column to
pour scorn on studies documenting the medical effects of second-hand
tobacco smoke and showing that climate change is taking place. Even
after Fox News was told about the money he had been receiving from
Philip Morris and Exxon, it continued to employ him, without informing
its readers about his interests.

TASSC's headed notepaper names an advisory board of eight people.
Three of them are listed by Exxonsecrets.org as working for
organisations taking money from Exxon. One of them is Frederick Seitz,
the man who wrote the Oregon Petition, and who chairs the Science and
Environmental Policy Project. In 1979, Seitz became a permanent
consultant to the tobacco company RJ Reynolds. He worked for the firm
until at least 1987, for an annual fee of $65,000. He was in charge of
deciding which medical research projects the company should fund, and
handed out millions of dollars a year to American universities. The
purpose of this funding, a memo from the chairman of RJ Reynolds
shows, was to "refute the criticisms against cigarettes". An undated
note in the Philip Morris archive shows that it was planning a "Seitz
symposium" with the help of TASSC, in which Frederick Seitz would
speak to "40-60 regulators".

The president of Seitz's Science and Environmental Policy Project is a
maverick environmental scientist called S Fred Singer. He has spent
the past few years refuting evidence for manmade climate change. It
was he, for example, who published the misleading claim that most of
the world's glaciers are advancing, which landed David Bellamy in so
much trouble when he repeated it last year. He also had connections
with the tobacco industry. In March 1993, APCO sent a memo to Ellen
Merlo, the vice-president of Philip Morris, who had just commissioned
it to fight the Environmental Protection Agency: "As you know, we have
been working with Dr Fred Singer and Dr Dwight Lee, who have authored
articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ)
respectively ..."

Singer's article, entitled Junk Science at the EPA, claimed that "the
latest 'crisis' - environmental tobacco smoke - has been widely
criticised as the most shocking distortion of scientific evidence
yet". He alleged that the Environmental Protection Agency had had to
"rig the numbers" in its report on passive smoking. This was the
report that Philip Morris and APCO had set out to discredit a month
before Singer wrote his article.

I have no evidence that Fred Singer or his organisation have taken
money from Philip Morris. But many of the other bodies that have been
sponsored by Exxon and have sought to repudiate climate change were
also funded by the tobacco company. Among them are some of the world's
best-known "thinktanks": the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the
Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the
Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation and the
Independent Institute, as well as George Mason University's Law and
Economics Centre. I can't help wondering whether there is any aspect
of conservative thought in the United States that has not been formed
and funded by the corporations.

Until I came across this material, I believed that the accusations,
the insults and the taunts such people had slung at us
environmentalists were personal: that they really did hate us, and had
found someone who would pay to help them express those feelings. Now I
realise that they have simply transferred their skills.

While they have been most effective in the United States, the impacts
of the climate-change deniers sponsored by Exxon and Philip Morris
have been felt all over the world. I have seen their arguments
endlessly repeated in Australia, Canada, India, Russia and the UK. By
dominating the media debate on climate change during seven or eight
critical years in which urgent international talks should have been
taking place, by constantly seeding doubt about the science just as it
should have been most persuasive, they have justified the money their
sponsors have spent on them many times over. It is fair to say that
the professional denial industry has delayed effective global action
on climate change by years, just as it helped to delay action against
the tobacco companies.

· This is an edited extract from Heat, by George Monbiot, published by
Allen Lane. To order a copy for £16.99 with free UK p&p (rrp £17.99),
go to Guardian.co.uk/bookshop or call 0870 836 0875.