Senate Report Debunks “Consensus” on Global Warming
December 20th, 2007 at 07:26pm Matt Margolis
According to this Senate report, over 400 prominent scientists disputed man-made global warming claims this year.
From the introduction:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Meanwhile, Democrats have been using the politics of fear to increase regulations of all kinds in the name of the environment, like banning incandescent light bulbs.
Entry Filed under: Environment
39 Comments
1. Decidenator | December 20th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
They have the list of scientists and their criticisms right there on that page. How many of them dispute that man-made global warming is happening? Almost zero.
Browsing through the list, I see objections like:
“criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage”
“we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation”
“Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate”
I’m left here, still eager to learn of scientists who think that humans aren’t contributing to global warming.
2. Faceplant | December 20th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Not to mention that Matty is being pretty misleading by characterizing this as a “Senate Report”.
In fact the “report” originated from the offices of Sen. James Inhofe. It is not the result of a study done by any Senate Committee. It’s the product of staffers who work for Sen. Inhofe.
3. liberalT | December 20th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
truth doesn’t matter to Matt. All Matt wants to do is to continue to post lies, slander, and general partisan hackery at the behest of his republican masters. Sad really. As report after report comes out (99% of them indicating global warming is man made) Matt ignores them all except for the one which is sponsored by EXON . Pathetic
4. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
I found the following interesting:
“Recall that most of the 1.1 degree - about 0.7 degrees - has already occurred since the beginning of the industrial era. This fact itself is an indication that the climate sensitivity is unlikely to be much greater than 1 Celsius degree: the effect of most of the doubling has already been made and it led to 0.7 K of warming,” Motl wrote in an August 17, 2007 blog post. (LINK)
“By the end of the (CO2) doubling i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 — assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time — Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only - a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to,” Motl explained.
5. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
This as well:
“The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %),”
6. Almiranta | December 20th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
So now the demand is that scientists have absolute scientific proof of something before they can offer an opinion?
Too bad that wasn’t applied to the ’scientists’ who jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon, who succumbed to pressure to sign on, without any such proof.
The scientists who were quoted in the report commented on the lack of proof behind the new clothes of this emperor. You see, being REAL scientists and all, they didn’t march in with a preset agenda, didn’t tailor their theories to match their hypotheses, didn’t work backwards from an opinion to a proof.
There is no reason to disprove the claims of the “consensus”. It is completely adequate to point out that consensus is not scientifically acceptable, and that this particular consensus is based on bad science–or on no science at all.
Fact: it has been getting warmer—in some places, a little.
Fact: it is tempting to look at the warming trend and also at the pollution in the air and speculate that there might be a relationship.
Fact: it is easy to fall into the trap of projecting an intuitive guess onto a problem and then gradually accepting that intuition as fact
Fact: prior to this new fad, it was accepted that solar energy was the primary contributor to climate changes over the eons. As a matter of fact, just last year a group of Japanese scientists warned of a rapid cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere within the next decade—as the result of changes in solar energy reaching the Earth.
Fact: as climate changes have always been cyclical, with those cycles being of many hundreds of years in length, it is foolish to put too much credence in studies which are so recent that they cannot possibly take into account more than a small percentage of the cycle in which we now find ourselves.
Fact: it is prudent to look at the climate changes we are now recording, and to examine any possible impact humanity may have upon them, but it is irresponsible to lurch violently into a state of over-reaction, and hyper-emotionalism, based on the very limited actual information we now have.
Fact: when some facts are suppressed because they do not advance a theory, that theory becomes automatically suspect, and many facts about increasing ice packs, lowering temperatures, and such phenomona are being ignored or even hidden.
Fact: true scientific method involves a careful and objective examination of all the data, which in this case would demand a balanced evaluation of the many beneifits of the degree of global warming we have seen so far, as well as the data which seem to contradict the human-influence-apocolyptic-global-warming-emergency meme being pushed so fervently.
Fact: the irrational advancement of an unproven but popularly acceptable concept such as this one has the impact of making many people extremely rich and creating a power base which includes political power for many more, elements which should be factored in when evaluating the quality of the information being disseminated.
What the radical lemmings are ignoring, or misstating, is that no one is denying some degree of climate change, and no one is claiming that it is impossible for human activity to have an influence on that change. Please do not keep attacking the skeptics by inventing such claims.
The skeptics are skeptical of the scientific methodology used to arrive at certain conclusions, and of the accuracy of some of those conclusions, not of the actual proven fact that in some places the temperatures are rising.
And the skeptics are completely in favor of true objective scientific research so we can learn why temperatures rise and fall, and the impact of those variations, and if human activity has a substantial effect on these variations, and if anything can or should be done to mitigate those influences if they are proven to exist.
7. Retired Spook | December 20th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Ricorun either linked to or posted an excerpt from an interesting article in a previous GW thread. He also emailed me the entire article, which was in MicroSoft Word format, as well as a link to a condensed version which was printed in Gristmill. IMO, one of the most interesting paragraphs in the article dealt not with the reality of AGW, but the public’s perception of it:
A year or two ago, the Swedish economist, Bjorn Lomborg held several of economic conferences and asked people ranging from college students to Nobel Laureates in economics to rank problems facing the world based on ROI on a given amount of money available. Regardless of the forum, global warming/climate change consistently ranked at or near the bottom.
One of the aspects of the GW debate that has always fascinated me is that, at least among the public, it’s largely divided along ideological, not scientific lines. Liberals would undoubtedly say that’s because they care more about the future of the planet than Conservatives do, but I suspect there’s a whole lot more to it than that.
8. NeoClown | December 20th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
The Konservative Kristian Sez:
Who cares if global warming is real or not?
If it’s only warming up a degree or two a year it shouldn’t effect the planet untill after I’ve gone to live with Jesus. I’ll just let my grandkids worry about it.
9. Retired Spook | December 20th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Who cares if global warming is real or not?
NeoClown (apt screen name, BTW) based on the figures in my previous comment, I’d say it’s only fringe kooks like you who care.
10. Ricorun | December 20th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Spook: One of the aspects of the GW debate that has always fascinated me is that, at least among the public, it’s largely divided along ideological, not scientific lines. Liberals would undoubtedly say that’s because they care more about the future of the planet than Conservatives do, but I suspect there’s a whole lot more to it than that.
If you could post that article I sent you here I’d appreciate it. I don’t seem to be able to provide links for whatever reason. Maybe I’m in some kind of “awaiting moderation” purgatory or something. But I think it’s something everyone needs to read. It represents a different way of thinking about things. And if you were inclined to Google some combination of “Gingrich” and “renewable fuels” perhaps it would be clear that though the issue of renewable fuels certainly deals with globlal warming and the science involved therein, there is SO much more to it than that. I wish I could post links. His thoughts at the “25 by ‘25″ conference is worth considering — he goes into the real costs of the current energy structure.
I wish I could say more (and be more specific). But the bottom line is that I am firmly convinced that we as a country can lead or we can follow. Either way, someone’s going to make gobs of money. And no one group (no politically connected group anyway) seems to be able to muster the clarity of vision to consider the issue in those terms. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that entrenched political elements on both sides have entrenched and powerful economic interests.
Nonetheless, I’m determined to make part of that gob mine. There’s nothing wrong with making money, right?
11. Ben Bowman | December 20th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Re: the Swedish economist:
Of course fighting GW has a low ROI. We could spend trillions, shut down 80% of modern civilization and do what, *slow* the warming by a couple tenths of a degree?
The fact that the actions as drastic as the ones called for by GW hysterics really wouldn’t do much tells me something other than humans is the primary driver of global temperatures.
My guess? The giant thermonuclear furnace in the sky, casting down hundreds of BTUs per square foot every hour of every day.
12. NeoClown | December 20th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Spook,
May I call you a Spook? (And I mean nothing racial by that.) I am a southern-fried, down-home, Red-State, southern boy who is a Christian, and a conservative, and a republican and I was not kidding. I couldn’t care less if global warming is real or not. I’ll let my grand kids worry about that just the same way I will let them pay for the Iraq war.
13. Retired Spook | December 20th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
It’s a good thing I archive your emails, Rico. The short article at Gristmill is here. The longer article which appears to have been originally published in Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s blog was in MicroSoft word format in your email. I couldn’t find it in the blog archives, and I don’t want to use up 29 pages of Matt and Mark’s bandwidth to paste it here. How did you originally come across the (long) article?
14. Retired Spook | December 20th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
May I call you a Spook?
My friends call me that — you may call me “sir”. Heh, heh, just kidding.
I am a southern-fried, down-home, Red-State, southern boy who is a Christian, and a conservative, and a republican
I was born at night, but not last night. You must be in disguise. You’re not on a secret mission, are you?
I’ll let my grand kids worry about that just the same way I will let them pay for the Iraq war.
In 1945 the farthest thing from my dad’s mind was whether or not his grandkids would have to pay for WWII.
15. Retired Spook | December 20th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
What difference does it make if human activity contributes or not.
It makes a huge difference, Mitchie, because if Man is not causing it, then Man cannot fix it.
Iowa has had an unpresidented ice storm
Is that “unpresidented” in that it can’t be blamed on (President) Bush? LOL!!
16. NeoClown | December 20th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
“In 1945 the farthest thing from my dad’s mind was whether or not his grandkids would have to pay for WWII.”
Roosevelt raised taxes and sold war bonds to pay for the war.
“It makes a huge difference, Mitchie, because if Man is not causing it, then Man cannot fix it.”
That’s just dumb. Man fixes lot’s of things he doesn’t cause. Ever hear of polio?
17. Retired Spook | December 20th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Roosevelt raised taxes and sold war bonds to pay for the war.
And yet the budget deficit at the end of WWII was substantially higher as a percentage of GDP than it is now. Ask Bane to explain why that was.
Ever hear of polio?
Now you may actually be on to something. Maybe what we need is a global warming vaccine. I doubt that it would work on the hopeless ones like Mitche, though.
18. Ricorun | December 20th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
[shakes head] — or **chuckles** — or something. Once in a while it would be nice to engage in a substantive conversation. Remember those?
19. bagni | December 20th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
i’m confused again
is there an earthling that knows definitively what the the average temp of this planet really is?
don’t think there is…..
so how can anyone say if there is or there isn’t global warming?
which means both sides are kinda guessing?
bottom line…your earth is speaking to you
listen……
she’s saying…..conserve, use less, don’t waste
20. Ricorun | December 20th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
In the mean time… for those out there looking for a late Christmas gift for someone into some easy listening and/or Americana music, allow me to recommend Norah Jones’s CD, “Not Too Late” or Allison Krauss’s “A Hundred Miles or More”. I think I will buy everything Norah Jones produces for the rest of my life. I suspect the same is true for Allison Krauss (I don’t recommend the one she did with Robert Plant though). Krauss’s “Miles” CD is supposed to be a bunch of throw-aways that didn’t make it onto her other compilations. You couldn’t prove it by me. I REALLY like it.
I also like Levon Helms’s “Dirt Farmer”. For the youngsters out there, Levon was the drummer and one of the vocalists for a band called (generically enough) The Band. For the oldsters who liked The Band, “Dirt Farmer” is in a similar genre, but “earthier”. Go figure, considering the title. Anyway, he hasn’t recorded anything in 25 years or so. Understandably so, I suppose: he had throat cancer. And if you listen to him talk these days he croaks like a frog (kinda like Leon Russell — have you heard that guy lately?). But apparently he can still sing — surprisingly well, in fact.
21. GOP4ME | December 21st, 2007 at 12:13 am
Funny Bagni, when I listen to the earth, HE whispers that I should be sure to vote Republican.
I guess it is all in perception eh you pompous ass?
22. hermie | December 21st, 2007 at 7:02 am
‘Consensus science’ is just another way to impose a political agenda, by supressing or marginalizing dissenters. In the case of ‘Global Warming’ (or is it ‘climate change’?..I guess it depends on what it’s doing outside your window this morning.), the cause was automatically human, and so, they had to find the ’science’ to ‘prove’ it.
BTW… Polio wasn’t ‘fixed’. It still exists in the world, much like a number of diseases which had a drop in cases, and some, like smallpox, which have made a ‘comeback’.
23. AAR | December 21st, 2007 at 7:32 am
Fortunately, the Earth has been warming — NATURALLY — for several thousand years. If it hadn’t, much of North America would still be covered with mile thick ice sheets and as cold as Greenland — devoid of the animals, plants, food crops, and humans which live here today!!!
At some point in time, the NATURAL CYCLE will reverse itself and the Earth will again cool — covering the Algorians and their hot air in another sheet of ice!!!
AAR
24. ZootAllure | December 21st, 2007 at 9:02 am
“except for the one which is sponsored by EXON .”
So Liberaltard believes the “evil” oil companies are behind all GW deniers and they pay them to dissent from the Goreacle.
What a moron.
25. Joel | December 21st, 2007 at 9:05 am
Got to love libs, the only facts that matter are the ones that add to their religious conviction. Anything else is paid for by Exxon or any of the other devil gas companies.
Scientific fact, data etc.. are dismissed as heresy.
Kind of the same augment they use against anyone that believe is God or Jesus. Excluding Muslim that is.
26. navydad | December 21st, 2007 at 9:20 am
Rico & Spook
I’ve been looking for additional data on methane, nitrogen and CO2 production caused by decomposing aquatic plants…so if you find something, let me know.
It would be an interesting exercise to use the Palmer Index and overlay the regions that are known to produce the highest levels of greenhouse gases and see if there are any connections.
You can see one map here drought.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/
27. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 10:07 am
Yes, you guys are right. Global warming is fake and made up. All the science in favor of the conclusion that we are in serious trouble because of man-made climate change is stupid and not scientific at all. It’s been planted as part of a conspiracy to make money off of carbon credits.
So yes, cliamte change is a myth because you can’t see it happening nor can you completely prove it. However, God is real. I just know. No need for actual proof on that one.
*shakes head*
You guys are part of the reason why the American People allow their government to continue to stonewall and impede progress. You allow yourself to be fooled and therefore are part of the problem. Try joining reality and demanding that we do something. Instead you are helping to actually confuse the issue by supporting Senator Inhofe’s agenda in spreading anti-science BS.
Seriouslty, Inhofe is a moron and definitely NO scientist.
Read this transcript from a FoxNews show:
So yeah, care to post anymore Inhofe reports to justify ANYTHING regarding actual science?
28. Ricorun | December 21st, 2007 at 10:15 am
navydad, the European Space Agency web site has a bunch of info about regional distributions of various atmospheric gases. Let’s see if I can link to them…
Here’s the distribution of CO2 and methane:
http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEM1DUQ08ZE_index_0.html#subhead1
Here’s the distribution of NO2:
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM340NKPZD_index_0.html
You can also sift through their index to find more information.
29. NeoClown | December 21st, 2007 at 10:30 am
I don’t care if the planet warms, or freezes as long as I have my plastic Jesus.
30. Joel | December 21st, 2007 at 10:56 am
Let us talk science. If the sun has not been causing the warming, why are the other planets warming the same relative amount as the earth?
31. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 11:22 am
Well, Joel, I haven’t been to the other planets lately so I don’t know.
Let me call up my Martian meteorologist buddy real quick and see what he has to say.
32. AAR | December 21st, 2007 at 11:33 am
SteaM
…so I don’t know.
Exactly!!!
33. Joel | December 21st, 2007 at 11:38 am
Steam,
It is a fact, that the other planets are warming at the app the same rate as earth. Please use science to explain.
34. SteaM | December 21st, 2007 at 11:47 am
Dude, you are the one making the claim. So you show me the science. Link please?
35. AAR | December 21st, 2007 at 12:28 pm
By the way, anyone listening to the actual clip of the Fox News interview quoted by SteaM will find that the statements:
GRETCHEN: Wow.
BRIAN: That’s a Fox News alert.
GRETCHEN: That is a Fox News alert.
Were meant to be sarcastic and facetious, in response to the “great discovery” noted in the geophysical research letters which said:
“the warming is due to the sun. Isn’t that remarkable?”
And yes, that would be a Fox News alert for Democrats (Liberals)!!!
AAR
36. Joel | December 21st, 2007 at 12:56 pm
SteaM,
This may be confusing to you because some of these stories actually offer two points of view instead of your normal one view you get from Soros and the Gorical. Try to keep on open mind, just because two things happen at the same time doesn’t always mean they are connected.
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist’s controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun’s heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
37. Retired Spook | December 21st, 2007 at 5:28 pm
It’ll be interesting to see what global crisis the Left comes up with next if this trend continues.
38. phnx | December 22nd, 2007 at 2:10 pm
“Seriouslty, Inhofe is a moron and definitely NO scientist”
You mean unlike the Goracle who has tranformed himself from 2nd rate politico into a demigod in the eyes of you environmentalist wackos.
The Goracle doesn’t have to be a scientist or be constrained by scientific method. As demigod he creates his own scientific laws which can not be debated because…its settled science…we now must employ all resources to transform the world before its too late…even though it might already be too late.
You leftists enviro-religion fanatics are scary.
39. brewski | December 31st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
These organizations also agree with the consensus:
The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Northwestern University
University of Akureyri
University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey
National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK
Climate Group
Climate Institute
Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society
Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House
US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality
National Economic Council
Office of Management and Budget
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Engineers Australia
American Chemical Society
American Association of Blacks in Energy
World Petroleum Council
The Weather Channel
National Geographic
The following companies agree with the consensus:
ABB
Air France
Alcan
Alcoa
Allian
American Electric Power
Aristeia Capital
BASF
Bayer
BP America Inc.
Calvert Group
Canadian Electricity Association
Caterpilliar Inc.
Centrica
Ceres
Chevron
China Renewable
Citigroup
ConocoPhillips
Covanta Holding Corporation
Deutsche Telekom
Doosan Babcock Energy Limited
Duke Energy
DuPont
EcoSecurities
Electricity de France North America
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
Endesa
Energettech Austraila Pty Ltd
Energy East Corporation
Energy Holding Romania
Energy Industry Association
Eni
Eskorn
ETG International
Exelon Corporation
ExxonMobil
F&C Asset Management
FPL Group
General Electric
German Electricity Association
Glitnir Bank
Global Energy Network Institute, Iberdrola
ING Group
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Interface Inc.
International Gas Union
International Paper
International Power
Marsh & McLennan Companies
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company
MEDIAS-France
MissionPoint Capital Partners
Munich Re
National Grid
National Power Company of Iceland
NGEN mgt II, LLC
NiSource
NRG Energy
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Reykjavik Energy
Ricoh
Rio Tinto Energy Services
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rolls-Royce
Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS Group)
Stora Enso North America
Stratus Consulting
Sun Management Institute
Swiss Re
UCG Partnership
US Geothermal
Verde Venture Partners
Volvo
In addition, the scientific consensus is also endorsed by the CEO’s of the following companies:
A. O. Smith Corporation
Abbott Laboratories
Accenture Ltd.
ACE Limited
ADP
Aetna Inc.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
AK Steel Corporation
Alcatel-Lucent
Allstate Insurance Company
ALLTEL Corporation
Altec Industries, Inc.
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
American Express Company
American International Group, Inc.
Ameriprise Financial
AMR Corporation/American Airlines
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Apache Corporation
Applera Corporation
Arch Coal, Inc.
Archer Daniels Midland Company
ArvinMeritor, Inc.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Avery Dennison Corporation
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
Bechtel Group, Inc.
BNSF Railway
Boeing Company
Brink’s Company
CA
Carlson Companies, Inc.
Case New Holland Inc.
Ceridian Corporation
Chemtura Corporation
Chubb Corporation
CIGNA Corporation
Coca-Cola Company
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
Convergys Corporation
Con-way Incorporated
Corning Incorporated
Crane Co.
CSX Corporation
Cummins Inc.
Deere & Company
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Delphi Corporation
Dow Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical Company
Eastman Kodak Company
Eaton Corporation
EDS
Eli Lilly and Company
EMC Corporation
Ernst & Young, L.L.P.
Fannie Mae
FedEx Corporation
Fluor Corporation
FMC Corporation
Freddie Mac
General Mills, Inc.
General Motors Corporation
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
Harman International Industries, Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Group
Home Depot, Inc., The
Honeywell International, Inc.
HSBC - North America
Humana Inc.
IBM Corporation
Ingersoll-Rand Company
International Textile Group
ITT Corporation
Johnson Controls, Inc.
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
KPMG LLP
Liberty Mutual Group
MassMutual
MasterCard Incorporated
McGraw-Hill Companies
McKesson Corporation
MeadWestvaco Corporation
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc.
Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
MetLife, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Motorola, Inc.
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
National Gypsum Company
Nationwide
Navistar International Corporation
New York Life Insurance Company
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Nucor Corporation
NYSE Group, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.
Pactiv Corporation
Peabody Energy Corporation
Pfizer Inc
PPG Industries, Inc.
Praxair, Inc.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Principal Financial Group
Procter & Gamble Company
Prudential Financial
Realogy Corporation
Rockwell Automation, Inc.
Ryder System, Inc.
SAP America, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
SAS Institute Inc.
Schering-Plough Corporation
Schneider National, Inc.
ServiceMaster Company
Siemens Corporation
Southern Company
Springs Global US, Inc.
Sprint Nextel
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
State Farm Insurance Companies
Tenneco
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Textron Incorporated
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
TIAA-CREF
Tyco Electronics
Tyco International Ltd.
Union Pacific Corporation
Unisys Corporation
United Technologies Corporation
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
USG Corporation
Verizon Communications
W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Western & Southern Financial Group
Weyerhaeuser Company
Whirlpool Corporation
Williams Companies, Inc.
Xerox Corporation
YRC Worldwide Inc
I’ll take this “consensus” over the 400 “scientists” handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.