The Truth about

boys in the band is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an “objective” source on climate change. It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed “climatologists”.

Yet skeptical scientists with equivalent credentials are not (probably because they have not proclaimed it). Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide.

Standard operating procedure is to post “rebuttals” to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn’t matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys “ammunition” to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory).

Their resident propagandist William Connolley’s job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist “science” pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose.

The truth is that is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don’t want you to know that.

Registrant Organization – Environmental Media Services
RC whoisEnvironmental Media Services (EMS) (Discover the Networks)

EMS’s founder and President was Arlie Schardt, who also served as the National Press Secretary for Al Gore’s 1988 presidential campaign, and as Gore’s Communications Director during his 2000 bid for the White House. […]

EMS officially served as the “scientific” branch of the leftist public-relations firm Fenton Communications; both companies shared the same Washington, D.C. address and office space. For more than a decade, David Fenton (CEO of Fenton Communications) used EMS to run negative media campaigns against a wide variety of targets, including biogenetic foods, America’s dairy industry, and President George W. Bush. […]

EMS also produced many stories condemning the Bush administration’s environmental policies. Among these titles were: “Bush Administration Obscures Truth About Toxic Cleanups”; “President Bush Signs Fatally Flawed Wildfire Bill”; “Earth Day Event To Highlight Bush Administration Assault On Environment, Public Health”; “Bush Administration Report Card: ‘F’ on Protecting Children”; and “National Environmental Groups Launch Campaign to Defeat President Bush.” EMS claimed that the data contained in its press releases constituted “the latest and most credible information” provided by “top scientists, physicians, and other experts.” These “experts” included officials of Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Environmental Media Services (EMS) (Activist Cash)

EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be “providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues.” A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist “experts,” all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton’s paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It’s a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994. […]

It’s called “black marketing,” and Environmental Media Services has become the principal reason Fenton Communications is so good at it. EMS lends an air of legitimacy to what might otherwise be dismissed (and rightly so) as fear-mongering from the lunatic fringe. In addition to pre-packaged “story ideas” for the mass media, EMS provides commentaries, briefing papers, and even a stable of experts, all carefully calculated to win points for paying clients. These “experts,” though, are also part of the ruse. Over 70% of them earn their paychecks from current or past Fenton clients, all of which have a financial stake in seeing to it that the scare tactics prevail. It’s a clever deception perpetrated on journalists who generally don’t consider do-gooder environmentalists to be capable of such blatant and duplicitous “spin.”

Fenton Communications (Discover the Networks)

Foremost public relations firm of the political left. Past clients have included Marxist dictatorships in Central America. Represents environmentalist groups, pro-Democratic political action committees, labor unions, and the anti-war movement.

Founded in 1982 by activist and public relations veteran David Fenton, Fenton Communications (FC) is the leading advertising and public relations firm for advocacy groups on the political left, with locations in Washington DC, New York, and San Francisco.

FC serves as an “umbrella” for “three independent nonprofit organizations” which it co-founded. These include: Environmental Media Services, which manages publicity efforts for environmental groups; New Economy Communications, a social justice group; and the Death Penalty Information Center, an anti-death penalty lobby.

FC expressly refuses to represent “clients and projects that we don’t believe in ourselves.” Among the clients and projects that FC has worked for are Marxist-Leninist regimes in Central America and Africa, environmental groups, labor unions, and anti-war organizations. In addition, FC has offered its services to pro-Democrat political action committees and law firms, as well as to political campaigns against the death penalty and gun-ownership rights. […]

Equally noteworthy has been FC’s business partnership with environmental groups. In 1988 and 1989, FC helped one such organization, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), promote misleading claims about the dangers of Alar, a pesticide then in use by the apple industry. On the basis of NRDC’s study of Alar, itself based on exaggerated probabilities rather than concrete empirical data, FC launched a media campaign that stoked consumers’ fears and captured the interest of television news programs, daily newspapers and daytime talk shows, fueling a backlash against apple growers. By some estimates, the apple industry suffered $200 million in lost revenue as a result of the FC campaign.

By contrast, FC and its client prospered. David Fenton subsequently boasted that his firm had “designed” the media campaign “so that revenue would flow back to NRDC from the public,” noting that FC had gained “$700,000 in net revenues from it.” Fenton Communications today cites the Alar campaign as a significant contribution to the “national debate” on pesticides. […]

Joining forces with the Environmental Working Group, FC has also engineered media campaigns exaggerating the dangers posed by pesticides in tap water and baby food.

In 2003 FC created an ad campaign targeting the automotive industry for the Evangelical Environmental Network. The controversial ads alleged that consumers who bought sport utility vehicles were, in effect, supporting terrorism by using large amounts of fuel imported from the Middle East. […]

Arlie Schardt, a senior consultant at Fenton Communications and Chairman of Environmental Media Services, served as Al Gore’s national press secretary during his first presidential campaign.

David Fenton (ActivistCash)

David Fenton has turned leftist activism into big business with his firm Fenton Communications, the single most easily identifiable nexus of anti-consumer activism in Washington, DC. Fenton and his staff masterminded the mad cow scare campaign, the organic marketing craze, the phony Alar-on-apples food scare, and more. He’s very good at what he does, and groups like the Center for Food Safety, Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Organic Consumers Association, and SeaWeb are all happy to pony up big bucks to give their radical messages the Fenton touch.

Fenton started out in the music biz, directing public relations for Rolling Stone. He entered the activist fray in the anti-nuclear movement of the late 1970s, co-producing the 1979 “No Nukes” concerts headlined by Bruce Springsteen and Bonnie Raitt. From there, he went on to found his own activism-centered PR empire, Fenton Communications, in 1982. Within that umbrella are “three independent nonprofit organizations” all co-founded by Fenton: the Death Penalty Information Center, New Economy Communications (an anti-globalism outfit), and Environmental Media Services.

Fenton Communications Launches Green-Tech Division (Reuters)

Fenton Communications has been deeply involved in environmental issues since its founding in 1982. The firm publicized the first reports of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, helped environmental NGOs at the Kyoto Global Warming Summit, and worked with Vice-President Al Gore to publicize the issues.

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)

“Environmental Media Services (a project of Fenton Communications, a large public relations firm serving left wing and environmental causes; they are responsible for the alar scare as well as Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war campaign.) created a website,, as an ‘authoritative’ source for the ‘truth’ about climate. This time, real scientists who were also environmental activists, were recruited to organize this web site and ‘discredit’ any science or scientist that questioned catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The web site serves primarily as a support group for believers in catastrophe, constantly reassuring them that there is no reason to reduce their worrying.” – Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

Update: East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit – 1139521913.txt

“I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, …We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

Think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal… We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don’t get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.”

– Michael E. Mann, IPCC Lead Author (2001)

A Little Testy at RealClimate (Prometheus)
Is Gavin Schmidt Honest? (Climate Audit)
RealClimate’s Touchy Censors (National Center for Public Policy Research)
Rebuttals to RealClimate (Climate Science)
Trying to post at realclimate (Climate Audit)
The Opinionator (Financial Post, Canada)
Wikipropaganda On Global Warming (CBS News)
Wikipedia’s climate doctor: How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles (National Post, Canada)

Continue Reading

Climate Depot Exclusive: Real Climate Exposed!

Gavin SchmidtGavin Schmidt of Real Climate

The global warming promoting website, is under fire yet again from a prominent scientist for presenting incorrect climate information. Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. publicly rebuked the website in a June 30, 2009 article for “erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving.”

Pielke, the former Colorado State Climatologist and currently a senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, countered Real Climate’s claim that warming was “progressing faster than expected” with the latest data on sea level rise, ocean heat content and Arctic ice.

In his article titled “Real Climate’s Misinformation”, Pielke also chastised readers of Real Climate for blindly accepting the incorrect climate claims promoted on the site.

“Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position,” Pielke Sr. wrote., a website which much of the mainstream media has relied on for climate science developments, has come under increasing criticism and scrutiny from scientists. Real Climate’s lead blogger and NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt was harshly criticized for some of his scientific claims in January 2009.

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a prominent scientist from the Netherlands, wrote a scathing denunciation of Schmidt in which he said he was “appalled” by Schmidt’s “lack of knowledge” and added, “Back to graduate school, Gavin!”

The latest scientific woes by were rebutted point by point by Pielke on June 20, 2009.

Continue Reading

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving ‚Äì I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” – Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution and Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath “cleaner”. Regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions through either ‘Carbon Taxes’, ‘Cap and Trade’ or the EPA will cause energy prices (electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, heating oil ect…) to skyrocket.

Continue Reading 2 Comments

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

IPCC Head PachauriIPCC Head Pachauri

Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report


 More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.

This new 2010 321page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.

This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke.

Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.” Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a “worthless carcass” and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in “disgrace”. He also explained that the “fraudulent science continues to be exposed.” Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. “‘I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded…There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!” See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! ‘Climate change – RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence…Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives’ [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming — As Skeptics!]

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”

Continue Reading

Climate Science Primer: Curious Anomalies in Climate Science



Perusal of “obvious” evidence and “scientists’ reports” converted many people from being sceptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming, to believing it was true – this happened to me, watching Al Gore’s film. However, further perusal of “neglected” or “suppressed” evidence leads to a U-turn back to an informed scepticism. “Climategate”, the public exposure of emails confirming suspected malpractices in key areas of Climate Science, and the whitewash “reviews”, occurred after I first wrote this, and amplified the public disillusion with the official science. My Primer is a pretty unique “confessions of an ex-warmist” aimed at intelligent non-scientists as well as scientists from other disciplines, not too long/erudite nor too short/simplistic.

This is a personal story of awakening, as well as a primer in Climate Science. It is not officially “peer-reviewed”, but it has had excellent unofficial peer-reviewing from both supporters and critics. It works from a lot of muddy, confusing evidence, to gain clarity in the science, so that effectively one becomes a scientist as one progresses with reading this and thinking about it. Thus you can reach your own informed conclusions about the science as well as the politics. You are protected from hitting a brick wall of technical language, or paywalls, or contradictory reports without clues. It is vital to grasp the scientific basics, to see where orthodoxy fails on science that has been taken for granted and trusted. Checking contradictory sources, and continuing to question evidence, is essential to discovering the truth. The primer is loaded with references; but no amount of good references is good enough for someone whose mind is already made up. Nobody is sponsoring me.

If you cannot trust evidence unless it comes from a top scientist with whom you cannot pull rank, watch Professor Carter show how CO2 is not causing Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), parts one, two, three and four. This fairly short, fact-packed, crystal-clear science U-tube may be all you need. Back this up with more videos. Look at the evidence in Akasofu: Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change and Segalstad: Atmospheric CO2 and Global Warming (both large pdf files). Learn a overview of facts: Global Warming Science is a powerful resource: good science and good links. Discover IPCC’s scientific limitations with a top solar scientist. Study the 850 Peer-Reviewed Papers supporting scepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming alarmism. Friendly for non-scientists is a simple introduction. Read the short but forthright Skeptics’ Handbook that clarifies the key issues for debate. An introduction similar to this one but written by a trained scientist, is Great Global Warming Hoax. Statisticians show the predicted hotspot is missing, though it is essential to the CAGW hypothesis. A brilliant amateur disproves the two basic CAGW hypotheses with Cause and Effect. The NIPCC is written by experts to match the contents, and beat the expertise, of IPCC itself. Here is a whole list of introductions. More exist. Read our quotes from top scientists that include Nobel laureates. Take your pick.  Nobody can truthfully say that scientists sceptical of manmade global warming are kooks or crooks, or simply in the pay of Big Exxxx, or that there is a consensus – as Al Gore claimed.

I have, throughout, tried to judge the science on its own merits, not by whether it has been peer-reviewed and supported by official science. This is an important point. There’s a lot of evidence that crucial work in Climate Science has been refused publication in peer-reviewed science literature, not because it’s bad science but because it challenges “authority” and vested interests. Climate Science is not the only area of science to have this problem. The time for debate in Science is never over. Important ideas always bubble up to be explored, long before formal studies. Often even the experts disagree. It is quite normal for important new work to be rubbished at first. Since climate sceptics have been shut out of mainstream publication and acceptance so extensively and crucially (as Climategate shows), they have turned to websites and blogs, to share more and more evidence that contradicts “manmade global warming”. If you have evidence to query or improve anything here – please contact me. I’ve done my best, but I’m still learning and I still make silly mistakes sometimes.

Now we’ll turn the clock back to before Climategate 17 Nov 2009, to tell my story.

Read rest…

Continue Reading

Medieval Warm Period

Medieval castle

What is it?
Our Medieval Warm Period Project is an ongoing effort to document the magnitude and spatial and temporal distributions of a significant period of warmth that occurred approximately one thousand years ago. Its purpose is to ultimately determine if the Medieval Warm Period (1) was or was not global in extent, (2) was less warm than, equally as warm as, or even warmer than the Current Warm Period, and (3) was longer or shorter than the Current Warm Period has been to date.

Why is it?
The project’s reason for being derives from the claim of many scientists — and essentially all of the world’s radical environmentalists — that earth’s near-surface air temperature over the last few decades was higher than it has been during any similar period of the past millennium or more. This claim is of utmost importance to these climate alarmists; for it allows them to further claim there is something unnatural about recent and possibly ongoing warming, which allows them to claim that the warming has its origins in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which allows them to claim that if humanity will abandon the burning of fossil fuels, we can slow and ultimately stop the warming of the modern era and thereby save the planet’s fragile ecosystems from being destroyed by catastrophic climate changes that they claim will otherwise drive a goodly percentage of earth’s plants and animals to extinction. Since these are serious contentions, we feel that their underlying basis must be rigorously tested with real-world data.

How is the project conducted?
As we discover new peer-reviewed scientific journal articles pertaining to the Medieval Warm Period, we briefly describe their most pertinent findings in the Study Descriptions and Results section of the project. The locations of all such studies are then plotted on a map of the globe, and the intervals of time they associate with the Medieval Warm Period are incorporated into a graph of the frequency distribution of all such time intervals, which is located just beneath the map in the project’s Interactive Map and Time Domain Plot feature. In extremely rare cases where only a single year is specified for the MWP, we assign it a 100-year timespan centered on the year reported by the study’s authors. For studies that allow the determination of an actual temperature difference between the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Current Warm Period (CWP), this number is incorporated into the frequency distribution of all such differentials in the project’s MWP-CWP Quantitative Temperature Differentials section. For studies that allow only a qualitative determination of the temperature difference between the MWP and CWP to be made, results are presented in the project’s MWP-CWP Qualitative Temperature Differentials section. Last of all, the names of all scientists and research institutions associated with the MWP Project studies we cite are included in our List of Scientists Whose Work We Cite and List of Research Institutions Associated With the Work We Cite.

When will the project end?
We believe there are enough pertinent studies already published, in the pipeline to be published, currently in progress and yet to be conceived to enable us to continue to add to the project on a weekly basis for an indefinite period of time.

How can you help?
You can help by alerting us to new (and old) research papers documenting the Medieval Warm Period that have not yet been posted on our website. When doing so, please send us a copy of the paper either by email (preferably in pdf format) or by post. Our contact information can be found here.

Study Description and Results
Australia/New Zealand
North America
Northern Hemisphere
South America

MWP-CWP Quantitative Temperature Differentials

MWP-CWP Qualitative Temperature Differentials

Interactive Map and Time Domain Plot
To view this feature, your computer must be configured to run applets that use Java technology.  To download and install free Java software, we recommend Sun Microsystems’ Java Runtime Environment, which is available at  Instructions on how to operate the map’s features are located under the map.  Scroll down after clicking on the link above to view them.

List of Scientists Whose Work We Cite

List of Research Institutions Associated With the Work We Cite

Continue Reading

NIPCC Report


The 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Climate Change Reconsidered, was released on Tuesday, June 2, 2009, at a press conference at the Washington Court Hotel in Washington, DC, in conjunction with the Third International Conference on Climate Change. Heartland President Joseph Bast, editor of Climate Change Reconsidered, and authors Craig D. Idso Ph.D. and S. Fred Singer Ph.D. spoke at the press conference.

Watch the press conference by [watching the videos here], or read the text of the report by selecting the Chapters below. The report may also be purchased from



2009 Report Contents

Full Report PDF (7.8 MB)

Front Matter PDF (0.4 MB)

Chapter 1
Global Climate Models   PDF (0.3 MB)

Chapter 2
Feedback Factors and Radiative Forcing   PDF (0.6 MB)

Chapter 3
Observations: Temperature Records   PDF (2.4 MB)

Chapter 4
Observations: Glaciers, Sea Ice, Precipitation, and Sea Level   PDF (0.8 MB)

Chapter 5
Solar Variability and Climate Cycles   PDF (1.1 MB)

Chapter 6
Observations: Extreme Weather   PDF (0.7 MB)

Chapter 7
Biological Effects of Carbon Dioxide Enrichment   PDF (1.6 MB)

Chapter 8
Species Extinction   PDF (0.7 MB)

Chapter 9
Human Health Effects   PDF (0.5 MB)

Appendix 1: Acronyms   PDF (0.1 MB)

Appendix 2: Table 7.1.1 – Plant Dry Weight (Biomass) Responses to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment   PDF (0.2 MB)

Appendix 3: Table 7.1.2 – Plant Photosynthesis Responses to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment   PDF (0.2 MB)

Appendix 4: The Petition Project   PDF (1.8 MB)

Reviews HTML

Continue Reading

Thank You!


Your contribution will be used to offset our server and hosting costs, as well as other administrative expenses. Thank you again and always feel free to contact us!

Climate Change Dispatch

{jcomments off}

Continue Reading

Advertise With Us!

Thank you for considering the Climate Change Dispatch web site for your online advertising needs! We work hard to keep our site current, continually adding new content to enhance its effectiveness as an advertising vehicle. We received over 60,000 visitors each month from people locally, nationally, and from around the world! See here for most recent stats.

PRICING AND PLACEMENT: When you select the popular pages on which your banners will appear (see below), our rate is only $50 per month per banner ad type (see below). Total availability of this type of ad (as of 08/14/09) is unlimited ad views and clicks per day. Your ad will be rotated with no more than three other ad clients with equal rotation. Placement on secondary pages (tier two or higher), the price is $50 per month, which includes the homepage.

Banner ads above content and right beneath navigation bar (very prominent) is $75/month.

The Climate Change Dispatch web site currently delivers over 60,000 each month, or 5,000 daily page views. We can put your ad on the prime pages of your choice or second-tier pages. And you know that your ad is targeting the people you want: educated, well-informed, political, and intellectually curious. Please read our About Us page to learn more about this site.

Banner specifications:
Banner 1 – Leaderboard: 468W x 60H pixels, 335 x 80 pixels
Position: Top of page below navigation bar, bottom of page, top of content page, bottom of content page

Banner 2 – Tile Ad: 120W x 60H pixels, 125 x 125 pixels, 200 x 200 pixels, 250 x 250 pixels
Position: Right hand-side column

Banner 3 – Skyscraper: 160W x 600H pixels, 120 x 600 pixels, 728 x 60 pixels, (add $25 for these sizes)
Position: Right hand-side column

Site requirements for ads:

  • We accept GIF, JPG, PNG, and Flash.
  • Flash versions accepted 5, 6, 7, and 8 with click tag.
  • 30k maximum file size for non-Rich Media ads.
    30k initial load and 100k maximum load for Rich Media ads.
  • Max 3 loops of animation ‚Äì up to 7 seconds of duration.
  • 72 DPI for GIF, JPG, and PNG.
  • All ads with links must use target “_blank”.
  • 30-second maximum for any non-user initiated animation.
  • No sound, please.
  • Creative with a white background must have a border to differentiate ad from editorial content.
  • Advertising cannot be directly competitive with and/or disparaging to
  • Ads cannot directly solicit contributions or donations.
  • We do not pad creatives with white space to ensure they meet size specifications.
  • We reserve the right to reject any potential ad campaign or creative without explanation.

Qualified advertising agencies: Deduct 15% from the above rates.

These rates are valid through Jan. 1, 2011. Minimum ad buy is THREE months. Climate Change Dispatch is a blog site with occasional TV-14 humor and certain TV-MA (language) videos (clearly indicated). All ads and target URLs are subject to editorial review, and may be terminated at any time at the sole discretion of Climate Change Dispatch by refunding payment for all undelivered months. This site does not carry advertising for adult-oriented or gambling-related sites.

Contact Thomas RIchard using our contact page for more details. We look forward to working with you on your successful Internet marketing campaign.



Climate Change Dispatch reserves the right to not sell any business or organization ad space or a banner. We reserve the right to move your banner location at any time. We do not guarantee any amount of traffic, click-throughs, or impressions.  We only track click-thru’s received through your banners.  All statistics are variable.  Prices are subject to change. All monthly advertising rates require a six-month running time minimum purchase.  All banners can be linked to a website or email address.

Continue Reading

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

Roger Revelle

Roger Revelle, who later apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase called global warming

The following article is reprinted with permission. Visit Coleman’s Corner for more articles, posts, and information.

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle obtained major funding from the Navy to do measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting post war atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago. Suess was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle co-authored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.

Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. Roger Revelle’s research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement. Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.

Continue Reading

35 Inconvenient Truths

The errors in Al Gore’s movie

A spokesman for Al Gore has issued a questionable response to the news that in October 2007 the High Court in London had identified nine “errors” in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.

ImageAl Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.

Next, Ms. Kreider makes some unjustifiable ad hominem attacks on Mr. Stewart Dimmock, the lorry driver, school governor and father of two school-age children who was the plaintiff in the case. This memorandum, however, will eschew any ad hominem response, and will concentrate exclusively on the 35 scientific inaccuracies and exaggerations in Gore’s movie.

Ms. Kreider then says, “The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex.” However, the single web-page entitled “The Science” on the movie’s official website contains only two references to articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is also a reference to a document of the IPCC, but its documents are not independently peer-reviewed in the usual understanding of the term.

Ms. Kreider then says, “The judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform an analysis of the scientific questions in his ruling.” He did not need to. Each of the nine “errors” which he identified had been admitted by the UK Government to be inconsistent with the mainstream of scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s results are sometimes “conservative,” and continues: “Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious.” Readers of the long list of errors described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was acting in good faith. However, in this connection it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction ‚Äì towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion. Read the rest…

Continue Reading