The Top 10 Lobbyists On The Crowded Climate Battlefield

The Climate Change Lobby :

They're all part of a crazy quilt of about 140 businesses and organizations that jumped into the climate change debate on Capitol Hill in the first quarter of this year. Those new players drove a 14 percent increase in the number of interests lobbying on global warming, compared to the same time last year, according to a new analysis by the Center for Public Integrity of lobbying disclosure forms filed with the U.S. Senate.

Read the whole story: The Climate Change Lobby

Comments

[RomeoMD25]

05:53 PM on 05/31/2009

There is not a scientific consensus
that man is the primary cause of
global warming.
A group of scientists and researchers recently gathered in New York to sign a declaration stating that there is no convincing evidence to suggest that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity cause climate change and called upon world leaders to abandon all efforts to reduce emissions. Over 19,000 scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gases activity is causing global warming. And John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, calls global warming the “greatest scam in history”.

[FormerReaganite]

04:48 PM on 05/21/2009

The polar bear on the ice floe is a metaphor for the diminishing Republican party.

[mioffe]

10:11 PM on 05/21/2009

Dear FormerReaganite, please look at my previous answer to you.
Democrats think like Al Gore. Al Gore is not scientist. He is good writer and made good point from everything, what his friends-scientists explain to him. All of them have right on their opinion. I am, as reader has right to disagree with them.
Al Gore has huge popularity in the world maybe because of election 2000. He author of Earth in the balance, 1992, An inconvenient truth, 2006, co-author of movie. He has support in mass media in the world and more dangerous in my opinion, supports from Government of USA.
I think that he is wrong and implementation of his ideas will bring huge damage for world economy, His good intention could bring huge damage to nature.
Al Gore explains global warming by increasing amount of carbon dioxide, which trapped infrared radiation, and heat the air. This heat evaporated additional amount of water vapors which also greenhouse gas and trapped infrared radiation, which additionally heat the air.
Republicans opposing Al Gore, calculate how much carbon dioxide produce by mankind activity and Nature. They found that our activities are only small percentage against Nature activities.
What if it is not only carbon dioxide?
In this case as Republican, as Democrat-all Senators, our Government going in wrong direction. We need to stop unscientific politic.

[litlbznsmn]

02:22 AM on 05/22/2009

What kind of "hit" will the world economy take from increased major storm activity, dwindling fresh water supplies, the inability to produce food etc, etc, etc?? It's about time the human race stopped making MONEY and PROFIT the number one concern and priority. How much do you think the US economy is going to suffer as we bankrupt the nation and wipe out the middle class. Poverty stricken consumers tend to spend much less.

[FormerReaganite]

02:41 AM on 05/22/2009

mioffe: "SO SAYS YOU."

I am waiting for the empirical data on increasing atmospheric humidity levels. If you cannot produce the evidence, your "junk science" website is just that: junk science.

I am well-aware of the U.S. coal company lobbying against climate change. I am well aware of U.S. politics. You seem to be outside of the U.S (by your grammar and writing style.) Do not claim to know more of U.S. politics than I do, because I live here, sir. I follow every nuance of lobbying corruption in my country. And there is a lot of it. Our Republicans are a clueless bunch of idiots. For example one of our congressmen stated that "the air contains 3% CO2." The Republican party needs to learn a lot about science. It seems as if every one of them had goofed off or slept during science class. What a pity...

[slithers]

01:36 PM on 05/21/2009

Duh!

The green movement isn't about curbing pollution. It's about marketing, branding and a way for the government to seize more control over the people.

Big Brother doesn't take over with an army in the streets, it happen with a smile and the warm fuzzing feeling that the government is giving you a helping hand.

[FormerReaganite]

04:39 PM on 05/21/2009

So says you...

[mioffe]

10:30 PM on 05/21/2009

slithers: “The green movement isn't about curbing pollution. It's about marketing, branding and a way for the government to seize more control over the people.”
Dear slithers, of course you have right to see political aspects of green movement.
I see in this movement huge misunderstanding as nature of global warming, as how to fight it.
If carbon dioxide is main player in Nature we must follow Al Gore recommendation. “Save energy at home, choose energy efficient lighting, appliances when making new purchases, properly operate and maintain your appliances, heat and cool your house efficiently, insulate your house, conserve hot water, improve the efficiency of your home office, switch to green power’ telecommute from home, reduce air travel, consume less, buy things that last, recycle, don’t waste paper, bag your groceries and other purchases in reusable tote, compost, carry your own refillable bottle for water and other beverages, modify your diet to reduce less meat, buy local, purchase offset to neutralize your remaining emission.”
It is always good to save as much energy as we can, but only to make our life on the same level of comfort, which we have right now. Common sense of every person needs to command him travel expenses, use of paper or reusable tote, refillable bottle, his diet.
It is laughable to ask 6 billions people in the world to follow religious dogmas, which in reality can’t change something.
Fortunately we have others possibilities and unlimited energy sources

[johnthesavage]

10:35 AM on 05/21/2009

You could sponsor this polar bear. Just a dollar a week would help keep him supplied with baby seals.

[mioffe]

09:05 AM on 05/21/2009

I invite to read, what sent to me Mr. Bladernr1001
“If you want a balanced view of this try this link:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/”
In Huffington Post we must discuss this article instead of Republicans, or Democrats stupidity.
“Since the Northern Hemisphere contains the greatest proportion of landmass and land heats more than oceans the Northern Hemisphere summer season causes significant increase in the global mean temperature”
Men activities changed reflection, evaporation, cloud formation, convection forces and wind direction. In these directions, NOT GHG I SEE REAL POSSIBILITIES TO MAKE differences.
“ Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%.
Much of the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide is active are either at or near saturation.
Water vapor absorbs infrared over much the same range as carbon dioxide and more besides.
Clouds are not composed of greenhouse gas -- they are mostly water droplets -- but absorb about one-fifth of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth.
Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13µm) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect - that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide).
Greenhouse gases can not obstruct this window although ozone absorbs in a narrow slice at 9.6µm.
Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect.
Adding them in near-saturated bands has little additional effect.”

[FormerReaganite]

05:03 PM on 05/21/2009

There is something you are forgetting. Water vapor is polar, and collects until saturation occurs (then it rains.) Water vapor concentration is heavy only in localized areas (That is why we have storms.) But CO2 is evenly distributed and ubiquitous, and being nonpolar, (like O2 and N2) does not condense out of the air unless we consider the extremely low temperatures of winter at the South Pole. And being nonpolar, CO2 does not dissolve well in liquid water, and even much less so as water temperature rises. Hence CO2 builds up, but water evaporation-precipitation is a CYCLE..

If you want to bring your "science" to a discussion, be prepared to debate with actual scientists.

[mioffe]

05:34 PM on 05/21/2009

Dear FormerReaganite please, read more carefully next:
“Since the Northern Hemisphere contains the greatest proportion of landmass and land heats more than oceans the Northern Hemisphere summer season causes significant increase in the global mean temperature”
It correlates with other fact that in summer time in Hawaii, which closer to equator temperature around 70-85F, while in Texas 85-110F’
It is not only carbon dioxide or other GHG.
It is winds and their direction, which send hot air to cloud level.
It is reflection, which send short wave back to space.
It is huge convection forces.
It is cloud formation.
It oceans streams.
It is properties of water and ice.
It is water evaporation, which take a lot of energy on the ground level and send vapor as lighter gas to cloud level, where infrared radiation escapes to space. Mankind activities changed not only carbon dioxide, which is not main player in Nature, but only tilling of land changed reflection, convection forces, evaporation and cloud formation.
Claiming only carbon dioxide will direct our activities in wrong direction.
We need to use all natural properties to reduce effect of global warming especially cooling effects of water vapor, water droplet, water, and ice.

“Being nonpolar, CO2 does not dissolve well in liquid water.” All gases dissolve in water, especially if it so clean as droplets of rain.
I am ready for discussion. What is about you?

[twisted-european]

07:21 AM on 05/21/2009

If you don't like Al Gore, maybe David Suzuki then is for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReFdEQBWBzw

Common sense is the best judge ...

[mioffe]

09:04 AM on 05/21/2009

David Suzuki is a smart man, but he did not understand that only smart direction in economy could help environment. Any changes to save only environment without strong economy are useless.

[mergina]

06:41 AM on 05/21/2009

Has there ever been any doubt in logical caring minds that the very survival of the human race would become a GIANT GREEN GREED APPROACH? We have SO LITTLE TIME, and the scrambling to $$$KACHING$$$ is headed toward a sickening greed fest. Humanity is doomed.

[Kula]

06:31 AM on 05/21/2009

To all the people feeling sorry for that polar bear. The person who took the photo was on dry land and the bear ate him alive minutes later.

[watchTVgetSTUPID]

02:52 AM on 05/21/2009

I suppose Al Gore's nxt book of fibs will claim the photo is proof that the North Pole Ics cap has shrunk to 2000 square feet because of man made CO2.

Gore Fibbed in his Inconvenient truth book when he claimed ice is thinning over all of Antartica. The thuth is Ice is thickening over Antarctica as well as thinning.

[FormerReaganite]

04:46 PM on 05/21/2009

These are not Al Gore's "claims." These are scientists' claims, based on collected empirical data.

[economics101]

02:26 AM on 05/21/2009

Have you people ever thought you might be getting duped with Global Warming.If I was blind ,and 50 people told me I was white,and 50 told me I was black,I would do nothing.Your selling yourselves to the tax man.The Free Market(if we ever find it again) will supply you with the best tech at the best price,1000 times more efficiently than Obama ,and Waxman.The Government is tricking you,and you don't care.What a sad day for America.

[watchTVgetSTUPID]

02:53 AM on 05/21/2009

Sounds like a Chappell skit.

[FormerReaganite]

04:44 PM on 05/21/2009

You are so wrong. It was, and is, the *capitalists* who have been doing the "tricking." Do a bit of actual research on the science, rather than getting all of your info from Faucks News.

[AndSoItGoes]

10:06 PM on 05/20/2009

Part of this issue is the continual LABELing that really misrepresents the critical issue of preserving environmental areas. Global warming is something that does occur naturally from time to time throughout history, BUT human impact is moving it forward faster than it would occur naturally. Further, nothing is being said about preservation of the forests on every continent. These forests provide humidity allowing for rain .... WATER. With the population of this world growing at the rate that it is, water is critical for agriculture and consumption.
Listened to a couple of Congressmen on Chris Matthews yesterday and could have screamed ... quit debating whats responsible for it. Acknowledge that it is occurring. And ... do something to reverse the damage to the atmosphere and preserve natural environments. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

[watchTVgetSTUPID]

02:59 AM on 05/21/2009

Why do Green Fanatics remind me of Jim Jone's followers in Jonestown? Because they are so brainwashed, they would destroy our jobs and economy for the sake of a fanciful boogyman that is not coming to get them after all. Enjoy the Koolaide ... Environmentalists will never get another chance to influence government after they wreck our economy with needless inefficient costs during a depression.

[FormerReaganite]

05:10 PM on 05/21/2009

Do you buy into that claim that being "green" destroys jobs? I say: "prove it." Think about who is making the dubious claims. Coal/oil/car companies, who have a monetary interest in preserving the status quo. Did you ever think of the idea that "green" will actually *create* thousands of new jobs with new technologies? What if the 19th-century buggy whip manufacturers had said: "horseless carriages will ruin the economy!" Perhaps by now we would all be wading in two feet of horse pies everywhere?

I submit to you that it is the *capitalists* who are doing the "brainwashing."

[opine2u]

08:13 PM on 05/20/2009

Look at that picture he needs help, after all, the poor thing voted for Obama.

[BlackbirdHighway]

07:41 PM on 05/20/2009

They have become the fourth branch of government; the lobbyists.

[fumes]

03:39 PM on 05/20/2009

sootn't there be a soot lobbyist?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LT461035.htm

[theubermensch]

02:34 PM on 05/20/2009

How do we get rid of these guys? It is time for us to move forward. Does any American know what that means anymore?

[dclobbyist]

11:20 PM on 05/20/2009

You're not going to get rid of lobbyists. Get over it and move on.