The study provided evidence that humans were to blame for the greenhouse effect. This was similar to previous ones that indicated that the Earth¡¦s temperatures increased 1.08 degrees in the 20th century; that polar sea ice was thinning; and that the world¡¦s high-latitude glaciers were diminishing. It used computer models and a new set of global temperature readings from across the world¡¦s seas to test if natural climate swings could be responsible for the 0.11 degree warming seen in the upper two miles of the oceans since 1955. Though the increase seemed small, spread over the world¡¦s oceans that comprised 72 percent of the Earth¡¦s surface, it was a huge amount. It was enough heat to satisfy California¡¦s energy demands for the next 200,000 years. The studies found that computer simulations of the Earth¡¦s climate could not produce the extensive warming without factoring in the presence of man-made pollutants such as greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol, which act to warm the Earth by trapping heat near the surface. When the pollutants were added to models, the temperature readings generated closely simulated the actual temperature records.

¡§The curves were so good, the data looked faked,¡¨ said Tim Barnett, an oceanographer and climatologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, and lead author of one of the studies. ¡§You just don¡¦t get it this good the first time around. But there it was.¡¨ Jeff Kiehl, a senior scientist in the climate modeling section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said, ¡§It¡¦s another piece of evidence we now have that humans are at fault for this increase in global heat content. It¡¦s going to be harder for the critics to say we aren't changing the climate.¡¨ And Tom Crowley, a veteran climate researcher at Texas A&M, added, ¡§People get convicted all the time on the weight of circumstantial evidence. To me, it¡¦s a massive weight of evidence indicating this is not natural variation or anything like it.¡¨ (Los Angeles Times, April 13, 2001)

5. THE TELLUS INSTITUTE AND THE STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTE. A study conducted by the Boston-based Tellus Institute and Stockholm Environment Institute in July 2001 revealed that the United States economy would save more than $50 billion in energy-related costs by 2010, if the Kyoto treaty were ratified. By using more efficient appliances, buildings, and cars to reduce fuel and electricity bills, the United States could more than pay the costs of developing new technology and putting it into place, resulting in savings of $135 billion annually in energy costs by 2020. According to study, American households would save an average of $113 each and the nation could cut carbon dioxide emissions to a level about 2.5 per cent above that in 1990. (The Straits Times, July 14, 2001)

6. THE EPA. In 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency released a study, showing that emissions of global-warming gases in the United States climbed 0.9 percent in 1999 compared with 1998. Industrial emissions in fact fell that year, by 2.1 percent. Commercial emissions -- mainly from electric utilities that supplied stores and other businesses -- rose 1.9 percent. But residential emissions were up 2.9 percent, also reflecting the increased use of electric power. Global-warming emissions from transportation, primarily from the burning of gasoline in automobiles and diesel fuel in trucks, grew 3.4 percent in 1999.

7. THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. In the summer of 2001, the National Academy of Sciences¡¦ National Research Council concluded that ¡§global warming could well have serious adverse societal and ecological impacts by the end of this century, especially if globally averaged temperature increases approach the upper end of ... projections.¡¨ The 11-member scientific panel also concluded that the large body of international research linking climate change to human activity was reliable. That conclusion rejected assertions by the Bush administration that previous warnings about global warming have been tainted by political bias. (San Francisco Chronicle, June 10, 2001)

8. THE U.S. CLIMATE CONTROL REPORT 2002. The U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 contradicted the position of the Bush administration about global warming. The report concluded that global warming was a reality and that it would lead to heat waves, water shortages, rising sea levels, loss of beaches and marshes, more frequent, and violent weather.

In addition, Bush himself dismissed the report as a mere product of ¡§the bureaucracy.¡¨ He should have blamed his own father. The only reason U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 was compiled in the first place is that George Herbert Bush signed a global warming treaty at the 1992 Earth Summit that obligated the United States to periodically furnish such reports to the United Nations.

Nevertheless, the Bush White House refused to accept the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002. EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham boldly claimed that they were unaware of the report until the New York Times disclosed its existence on June 3, 2002.

Asked if he had read the report, Bush answered, ¡§I read the report put out by the bureaucracy,¡¨ according to White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. Bush did not actually read that 268-page EPA report on climate change, even if he said he did. Fleischer was asked at his daily White House briefing about Bush¡¦s comments that he had read the report. Fleischer said, ¡§Whenever presidents say they read it, you can read that to be he was briefed.¡¨ (Associated Press, June 10, 2002)

9. THE CANADIAN ARCTIC SHELF EXCHANGE STUDY. In 2003, 120 scientists from 11 countries participated in the Canadian Arctic Shelf Exchange Study. In 2006, they concluded that the fact polar ice was melting at a rate of about 74,000 square kilometers each year -- an area about the size of Lake Superior -- and had been for the last 30 years. (Canadian Press, February 15, 2006)

The study included a year-long expedition aboard the Canadian research icebreaker CCGS Amundsen, which was deliberately frozen in an ice floe in Franklin Bay in December 2003. Scientists sampled the winter and spring conditions in the Western Arctic, then continued sampling in the open waters of the MacKenzie Shelf until August 2004. (Canadian Press, February 15, 2006)

10. THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION¡¦S CLIMATE MONITORING BRANCH. In 2006, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration finally backed away from its 2005 statement that rejected any link between the powerful hurricane season and global warming. (Wall Street Journal, February 16, 2006)

The study placed 2005 at or near the warmest year on record. Six of the warmest years on record occurred between 1997 and 2005. (National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, January 13, 2006)

As a result of this warm weather, the Arctic ice shelf began melting at a faster rate. The Arctic¡¦s perennial polar ice cap began declining at the rate of 9 percent per decade. (National Resources Defense Council, January 9, 2006)

11. EASTER MONDAY. A study by the human rights organization Easter Monday concluded in April 2006 that greenhouse emissions in the United States increased by 15.8 per cent from 1990 to 2004. This was mainly due to increased consumption of electricity generated by burning fossil fuel. (London¡¦s The Independent, April 19, 2006)

The United States emitted more greenhouse gases in 2004 than at any time in history. The total greenhouse gas emissions during 2004 increased by 1.7 per cent on the previous year, equivalent to a rise of 110 million tons of carbon dioxide. This was the largest annual increase since 2000. Fossil fuel combustion alone accounted for 94 per cent of the carbon dioxide emissions produced by the United States during 2004. (London¡¦s The Independent, April 19, 2006)

12. THE REVENGE OF GAIA. In 2006, Professor James Lovelock, author of The Revenge of Gaia, concluded that temperatures would likely rise by 3 to 5 degrees Centigrade by the end of the 21st Century, with impacts likely to be ¡§severe¡¨ but not ¡§catastrophic.¡¨ He also said that politicians are unlikely to cut emissions sufficiently to prevent dangerous global heating. (BBC, July 6, 2006)

13. THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE. In June 2006, the Environmental Defense concluded that American cars and pickup trucks were responsible for almost 50 percent of the greenhouse gases emitted by automobiles globally, even though the nation¡¦s vehicles made up just 30 percent of the nearly 700 million cars in use. (Los Angeles Times, June 28, 2006)

14. THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. REPORT IN 2006. In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences found in their comprehensive study of climate change data that recent warmth was unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia. The study supported the conclusion that human activities were responsible for much of the recent warming. (The Christian Post, June 23, 2006)

15. THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH. The National Center for Atmospheric Research revealed one of the consequences of stronger hurricane activity. The 2006 study said that global warming accounted for around half of the extra hurricane-fueling warmth in the waters of the tropical North Atlantic in 2005, while natural cycles were only a minor factor. The study contradicted claims that natural cycles are responsible for the upturn in Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995. It also added support to the premise that hurricane seasons would become more active as global temperatures would increase. (The Christian Post, June 23, 2006)

16. THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE: 2006 REPORT. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, comprised of a group of global scientists, reported to the United Nations that human activity was a cause for climate change. The panel released its report in February 2007. It reported that the rate of warming between now and 2030 was likely to be twice that of the previous century. (Toronto Star, January 19, 2007)

The United Nations study concluded that most of the global warming since the middle of the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse gases. ¡§It is very likely that (man-made) greenhouse gas increases caused most of the globally average temperature increases since the mid-20th century,¡¨ (Toronto Star, January 19, 2007)

The report estimated that if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be kept below 550 parts per million -- which would take a major worldwide effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions -- the average global temperature would rise by 2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. That was above the level before the Industrial Revolution. (Toronto Star, January 19, 2007)

17. 2007 SCIENTIFIC STUDY ON THE ARCTIC. The area of floating ice in the Arcticshrunk increased in the summer of 2007. That was more than in any other summer since satellite tracking began in 1979. It reached that record point a month before the annual ice pullback typically peaked. Scientists said the cause was probably a mix of natural fluctuations, like unusually sunny conditions in June and July, and long-term warming from heat-trapping greenhouse gases and sooty particles accumulating in the air. (New York Times, August 10, 2007)

18. THE 2007 STUDY BY 600 SCIENTISTS. After Democrats gained control of the Senate in January 2007, Barbara Boxer began chair of the Environment Committee. The following month, 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups, and businesses in 40 countries concluded: ¡§Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.¡¨ The report concluded that there was at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels was causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours, and worse heat waves. (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

2. BUSH DENIES THAT GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS

THE KYOTO ACCORDS. During the 2000 campaign, Bush promised, if elected, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that contributed to global warming. Yet, upon taking office, he withdrew American support from the Kyoto Treaty to regulate carbon dioxide, and he dismissed a report from his own Environmental Protection Agency pointing out carbon dioxide¡¦s critical role in global warming. (CBS News, June 4, 2002)

George W. Bush¡¦s father was committed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 -- to voluntarily stabilize carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by 2000. But 10 years later, the United States levels increased by about 12 percent over 1990 levels. Then conservative Republicans in Congress opposed the ratification of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which would have committed the United States and other industrialized countries to major cuts in carbon dioxide emissions. By refusing to approve the Kyoto Protocol, the United States, the world¡¦s largest consumer of fossil fuels, was left in the indefensible position of being committed to nothing more tangible than continued study of the global warming threat.

Bush¡¦s reversal on carbon dioxide signaled the beginning of the end to the Kyoto Protocol. Talks aimed at implementing the treaty, initially signed by the president¡¦s father, collapsed in November 2000 when the United States and the Europeans could not agree on gas reducing and trading compromises. (Boston Globe, March 15, 2001) By reneging on America¡¦s commitment to the Kyoto treaty, Bush clearly signaled that the United States was returning to isolationism. ¡§He was also turning his back on a huge surge in jobs and economic growth that would accompany an appropriate response to the climate crisis.¡¨ (Christian Science Monitor, March 31, 2001)

Bush¡¦s retreat into isolationism drew major criticism from across the globe. Japan, the first signatory to the protocol, reacted with outrage. The Japanese ambassador in charge of global environmental affairs, Kazuo Asakai, said, ¡§Japan will be dismayed and deeply disappointed. I¡¦m hoping this isn¡¦t true. This will jeopardize all the efforts and progress made until 1997.¡¨ Mie Asaoka, executive director of the Kiko Forum, a network of Japanese environmental groups that worked on the historic accord, said, ¡§The Kyoto Accord will be a waste, and three years of efforts by many people after the accord to enact a new treaty will be broken. This is a serious, sinful statement. It will hit the Japanese government hard.¡¨ Hiroshi Ohki, who was Japan¡¦s environmental minister in 1997 who headed the global environmental policy group within Japan's ruling party, said that it appeared Bush favored industrial interests over combating global warming. He commented, ¡§I do not understand the background of this sudden change in position of the United States. We thought we could come up with some agreement. I was not very pessimistic. We had the impression she (Whitman) was trying to work for the Kyoto Protocol, but the industries weren¡¦t.¡¨ (New York Times, March 28, 2001)

European Union leaders also criticized Bush for pulling out of the protocol. Prime Minister Goeran Persson of Sweden and president of the EU said, ¡§We are in genuine disagreement. We are going to speak loudly and clearly.¡¨ French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin also criticized Bush, saying his decision not to apply the agreement was a ¡§serious unilateral act. This is not an isolationist administration as has been the case before in the Republican tradition. This is more like a unilateralist administration.¡¨ German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer urged the Bush administration to reconsider its opposition. Letting the accord fail ¡§would be a fatal mistake that would set back all international efforts to protect the environment,¡¨ he said. (Los Angeles Times, April 13, 2001)

DISSENSION WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE. Facts proved global warming was real. Yet Bush denied reality, even though some members of his administration accepted the truth.

The head of his EPA, William Reilly, supported binding cuts in greenhouse emissions. Political advisers insisted on nothing more than voluntary cuts. Bush¡¦s chief of staff, John Sununu, had a Ph.D. in engineering from MIT and ¡§knew computers.¡¨ Sununu frequently logged on to a computer model of climate and vigorously critiqued its assumptions and projections. (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

Sununu¡¦s side won. T he Rio treaty called for countries to voluntarily stabilize their greenhouse emissions by returning them to 1990 levels by 2000. As it turned out, United States emissions in 2000 were 14 percent higher than in 1990. (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

Avoiding mandatory cuts was a huge victory for Bush and corporate America. But Rio was also a setback for climate contrarians. Just months after he signed the Rio pact, Bush lost to Bill Clinton whose vice president, Al Gore, had made climate change his signature issue. (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

Groups that opposed greenhouse curbs disseminated disinformation. They argued that science did not have an answer. Patrick Michaels, a climatologist at the University of Virginia, was their ally. He had written several popular articles on climate change, including an op-ed in the Washington Post in 1989 warning of ¡§apocalyptic environmentalism,¡¨ which he called ¡§the most popular new religion to come along since Marxism.¡¨ (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

The coal industry¡¦s Western Fuels Association paid Michaels to produce a newsletter called World Climate Report, which was regularly trashed mainstream climate science. At a 1995 hearing in Minnesota on coal-fired power plants, Michaels admitted that he received more than $165,000 from industry. (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

The road from Rio led to an international meeting in Kyoto, Japan, where more than 100 nations would negotiate a treaty on making Rio¡¦s voluntary -- and largely ignored -- greenhouse curbs mandatory. The coal and oil industries, worried that Kyoto could lead to binding greenhouse cuts that would imperil their profits, stepped up their message: There was too much scientific uncertainty to justify any such cuts. (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

There was just one little problem. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international body that periodically assesses climate research, had just issued its second report, and the conclusion of its 2,500 scientists looked devastating for greenhouse doubters. It concluded, ¡§the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate.¡¨ (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

In January 2000, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued its strongest argument. Contrary to the claim that satellites finding no warming were right and ground stations showing warming were wrong, it turned out that the satellites were off. Basically, engineers failed to properly correct for changes in their orbit. The planet was indeed warming, and at a rate since 1980 much greater than in the past. (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

However, before Kyoto, S. Fred Singer released the ¡§Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change.¡¨ He had run the United States weather-satellite program in the early 1960s. Singer told a Senate panel that ¡§the Earth¡¦s atmosphere is not warming and fears about human-induced storms, sea-level rise and other disasters are misplaced. (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

As more support for global warming increased, Singer came up with a new argument in 2000. He attempted to silence good scientists who disagreed with him. Singer said, ¡§Global warming has become an article of faith for many, with its own theology and orthodoxy. Its believers are quite fearful of any scientific dissent.¡¨ (Newsweek, August 13, 2007) With the inauguration of Bush in 2001, the administration hoped to have most of its major players in line. But as a candidate, Bush had pledged to cap carbon dioxide emissions. (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

Just weeks into Bush¡¦s term, the Competitive Enterprise Institute heard rumors that the draft of a speech Bush was preparing included a passage reiterating that pledge. CEI¡¦s Myron Ebell called conservative Robert Novak, who was about to interview Bush¡¦s new EPA chief, Christie Todd Whitman, on CNN¡¦s ¡§Crossfire.¡¨ (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

Novak asked Whitman about Bush¡¦s promise to reduce carbon dioxide. Within hours, the possibility of a carbon cap circulated on Capitol Hill. CEI president Fred Smith said, ¡§We alerted anyone we thought could have influence and get the line, if it was in the speech, out.¡¨ (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

The White House declines to comment.

Bush not only disavowed his campaign pledge, but two months into his presidency he withdrew from the Kyoto treaty. After the about-face, MIT¡¦s Lindzen told Bush he had done the right thing. Even if you accept the doomsday forecasts, Lindzen said, Kyoto would hardly touch the rise in temperatures. The treaty, he said, would ¡§do nothing, at great expense.¡¨ (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

Bush¡¦s reversal came just weeks after the IPCC released its third assessment of studies of climate change, further damaging the Bush administration. The IPCC concluded: ¡§The 1990s were very likely the warmest decade on record, and recent climate change is partly attributable to human activities. (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

The weather itself seemed to further hurt the Bush administration. The early years of the new century were setting heat records. The summer of 2003 was especially brutal, with a heat wave in Europe killing tens of thousands of people. (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

Bush made the cardinal mistake of calling for more scientific research to determine the effects of the greenhouse effect. Barely three weeks after Bush¡¦s energy blueprint was submitted, the National Academy of Sciences¡¦ National Research Council concluded that more research was still needed to determine exactly how much global climate change is attributable to human activities. However, it said that ¡§global warming could well have serious adverse societal and ecological impacts by the end of this century, especially if globally averaged temperature increases approach the upper end of ... projections.¡¨ (San Francisco Chronicle, June 10, 2001)

The report, which Bush requested by the White House, came at an inopportune time for the him, since he was about to launch on a six-day European tour where he hoped to justify his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. The president also was about to explain his broken campaign promise -- his refusal to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. On the day before his departure for Spain, Bush sought to stake out a middle ground on the issue of global warming, calling for still more research on greenhouse emissions but reiterating his stand that a proposed treaty on warming was fatally defective. He noted that China, second-largest emitter of greenhouse cases after the United States, would be exempt from the treaty negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, as would India. The president characterized global warming as a serious long-range problem but one whose dimensions are still too little understood. He claimed that he would seek millions of dollars for new research into the causes of global warming, and would try to renegotiate an international accord on the problem.

The 11-member scientific panel concluded that the large body of international research linking climate change to human activity is reliable. That conclusion rejected assertions by the Bush administration that previous warnings about global warming have been tainted by political bias. Among the main findings in the 28-page report:

Climate change was occurring as a result of human activity, and would continue to cause air and ocean temperatures to rise.

Previous international research was scientifically valid, but may have underemphasized some of the uncertainties surrounding global warming.

By 2100, the planet¡¦s average surface temperature would increase by at least 2.5 degrees and possibly as much as 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Anticipated climate change would have devastating effects: increased drought in semiarid regions; higher sea levels in coastal areas; and an increase in flooding and polluted storm-water runoff in some areas. (San Francisco Chronicle, June 10, 2001)

After the National Academy of Sciences¡¦ National Research Council announced its findings, some top Bush administration officials began backing away from its projections of how much coal, oil, and gas the United States would burn in the future. Instead, they announced new steps to address global warming, accepting the scientific evidence that warming was occurring because of human activities, including the burning of fossil fuels.

The administration announced that steps would include spending programs meant to reduce energy consumption or increase the use of clean energy sources like wind and solar power. In an attempt to downplay the Bush plan, they said that the energy strategy, was a ¡§statement of reality¡¨ rather than a vision of the nation¡¦s energy future. They said that some of its most striking projections were intended to call people¡¦s attention to energy needs but not to predict how administration policies would ultimately affect energy production and use. (New York Times, June 6, 2001)

A month after promising the EU leaders that he would not interfere with their efforts to carry out the Kyoto Protocol, Bush set up roadblocks to interfere with their commitment to agreement. Since the Kyoto conference, participating nations began negotiating ground rules for a binding treaty to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

During consultations in the Netherlands, the United States delegation raised objections on several issues in an attempt to torpedo the treaty. Jennifer Morgan of the World Wildlife Federation said, ¡§It seems that the delegation is going against what President Bush promised European leaders, which was not to obstruct other countries from moving forward. If the United States were to obstruct, it would set negotiations back years and the solution to the problem back years. It would show that the Bush administration has no concern about the environment at all, if it¡¦s not only going to keep us out of the treaty but the rest of the world as well.¡¨ (Los Angeles Times, July 6, 2001)

The United States and Japan were the largest contributors of emissions in the Kyoto group. Their share was 37 percent and 9 percent, respectively. Losing Japan -- along with the United States -- would make the accords relatively ineffective. The first clue that the Bush administration tried to impede the Kyoto treaty was in an attempt to urge Japan to boycott the treaty. In late June, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, discussing Bush¡¦s summit here with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, said the Japanese government had joined the United States in opposing the treaty. It had not.

Second, the United States delegation to Europe stressed that the key implementing organizations of the Kyoto protocol must not be dominated by representatives from developing countries. A third objection called into question a mechanism for pressing countries to comply with emissions targets by holding them responsible -- if they miss a target -- for making much deeper cuts during a subsequent commitment period. The United States argued that the penalties should not punish countries that miss their targets but should merely help them reach compliance.

And fourth, the United States stressed that it wanted to remain involved in negotiations about providing funds to help developing countries control greenhouse gas emissions. This move raised concerns that the administration might attempt to block a plan to direct $1 billion a year to developing countries for that purpose. (Los Angeles Times, July 6, 2001)

After Bush faulted the Kyoto treaty for excluding developing nations from its requirements, he moved to cut American aid for helping Third World countries combat global warming. The president asked Congress for nearly $4 billion to address climate change. He proposed reducing assistance to other countries by $41 million from $165 million in 2000. And he called for shifting more responsibility to private industry. Much of Bush¡¦s climate change budget amounted to shifting about $400 million toward areas such as burning coal more cleanly, insulating homes to use less energy, and giving tax credits for electricity produced from wind and less-polluting agricultural waste. (New York Times, July 7, 2001)

On June 11, Bush announced that he would help reduce heat-trapping pollution from Third World countries. He said, ¡§We want to work cooperatively with these countries in their efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions and maintain economic growth.¡¨ However, his budget would reduce money for programs intended to assist countries like Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, South Africa and Ukraine increase their industrial development with only minimal contributions to global warming. Bush said that several American-backed projects are ready to be privatized. Those included projects creating more efficient lighting in Mexico and wind power in India, using agricultural waste as fuel for electric power and heat in Brazil and expanded coal-bed methane recovery in China. (New York Times, July 7, 2001)

Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, criticized Bush¡¦s hypocritical stance: ¡§The president has said he wants to be a leader on global warming and instead he¡¦s not only undermined the Kyoto agreement but slashed the programs he¡¦s telling the public are important to him. That¡¦s not leadership -- that¡¦s a sham.¡¨ (New York Times, July 7, 2001)

The Bush administration went into damage control. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

The White House used consultant Frank Luntz, who advised how the GOP should deal with global warming. He said, ¡§You need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue. They should ¡¥challenge the science¡¦ by recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view.¡¨ (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

But challenging the science was difficult. The Bush administration generally viewed it as impermissible to go along with anything that would even imply that climate change was genuine. There was a belief on the part of many members that the science was fraudulent, even a Democratic fantasy. A lot of the information they got was from conservative think tanks and industry. (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

When in 2003 the Senate called for a national strategy to cut greenhouse gases, deniers of global warming went into action. They gave briefings and talks to the staff, and most was misinformation. (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

The White House opposed mentioning ¡§global warming¡¨ in any legislation involving climate provisions. Every effort to pass climate legislation during the Bush years was stopped in its tracks. (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

When Senators McCain and Joe Lieberman were fishing for votes for their bipartisan effort in 2003, a staff member for Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska explained to her counterpart in Lieberman¡¦s office that Stevens ¡§is aware there is warming in Alaska, but he¡¦s not sure how much it¡¦s caused by human activity or natural cycles.¡¨ (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

The response to the international climate panel¡¦s in February 2007 showed that greenhouse doubters in the Bush administration continued to fight reality. In addition to offering $10,000 to scientists willing to attack the report, which so angered Democratic Senator Boxer, they emphasized a new theme. Even if the world was warming, and even if that warming was due in part to the greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels, there was nothing to worry about. (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

The White House mantra was: ¡§There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we¡¦ve seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe.¡¨ (Newsweek, August 13, 2007)

The Bush administration consistently thwarted efforts by the World Bank to include global warming in its calculations when considering whether to approve major investments in industry and infrastructure. (Britains¡¦s The Independent, August 14, 2007)

On one occasion, Wolfowitz, personally intervened to remove the words ¡§climate change¡¨ from the title of a bank progress report and ordered changes to the text of the report to shift the focus away from global warming. (Britains¡¦s The Independent, August 14, 2007)

3. COLLUSION BETWEEN BUSH AND THE OIL INDUSTRY

E-mails within the Bush administration indicated there was collusion with conservative groups funded by the oil industry to downplay evidence that global warming was a reality. One was an email sent to Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, by Myron Ebell, a director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The CEI, a conservative lobbyist group, received more than $1 million in donations since 1998 from Exxon, which sold Esso petroleum in Britain. (London¡¦s The Observer, September 11, 2003)

The email, dated June 3, 2002, revealed how White House officials wanted the CEI¡¦s help to play down the impact of a report in which the United States admitted for the first time that humans are contributing to global warming. Ebell told Cooney, ¡§Thanks for calling and asking for our help.¡¨ The email discussed possible tactics for playing down the report and getting rid of EPA officials, including EPA head, Christine Whitman. Ebell wrote, ¡§It seems to me that the folks at the EPA are the obvious fall guys and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high up as possible. ¡K Perhaps tomorrow we will call for Whitman to be fired.¡¨ (The Observer, September 11, 2003)

In another memo, the Bush administration made efforts to suppress research that showed the Earth¡¦s climate was warming. A four-page internal EPA memo reveals that Bush¡¦s staff insisted on major amendments to the climate change section of an environmental survey of the United States that was published in June 2003. One alteration indicated ¡§that no further changes may be made.¡¨ (The Observer, September 11, 2003)

The memo discussed ways of dealing with the White House editing, and it warned that the section ¡§no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change.¡¨ Some of the changes included deleting a summary that stated: ¡§Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.¡¨ Sections on the ecological effects of global warming and its impact on human health were removed. So were several sentences calling for further research on climate change. (The Observer, September 11, 2003)

A temperature record covering 1,000 years was also deleted, prompting the EPA memo to note: ¡§Emphasis is given to a recent, limited analysis (which) supports the administration's favored message.¡¨ White House officials added numerous qualifying words such as ¡§potentially¡¨ and ¡§may¡¨, leading the EPA to complain: ¡§Uncertainty is inserted where there is essentially none.¡¨ (The Observer, September 11, 2003)

The paper analyzed what the EPA should do about the amendments and whether they should be published at all. When the report was finally published, the EPA had removed the entire global warming section to avoid including information that was not scientifically credible. (The Observer, September 11, 2003)

Philip Cooney was a White House official who once led the oil industry¡¦s fight against limits on greenhouse gases. He served as chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. In 2002 and 2003, Cooney repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming. (New York Times, June 8, 2005)

According to internal documents, Cooney removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports. The dozens of changes included the insertion of the phrase ¡§significant and fundamental¡¨ before the word ¡§uncertainties.¡¨ This language tended to produce doubt about findings that most climate experts maintained were causes of global warming. (New York Times, June 8, 2005)

In an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, ¡§Our Changing Planet,¡¨ Cooney amplified the sense of uncertainty by adding the word ¡§extremely¡¨ to this sentence: ¡§The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult.¡¨ (New York Times, June 8, 2005)

In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was ¡§straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings.¡¨ (New York Times, June 8, 2005)

A sentence in the October 2002 draft of ¡§Our Changing Planet¡¨ originally read, ¡§Many scientific observations indicate that the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change.¡¨ Cooney modified the sentence to read, ¡§Many scientific observations point to the conclusion that the Earth may be undergoing a period of relatively rapid change.¡¨ (New York Times, June 8, 2005)

The 2003 ¡§Strategic Plan for the United States Climate Change Science Program¡¨ described the reorganization of government climate research that was requested by Bush in his first speech on the issue -- in June 2001. The document was reviewed by an expert panel assembled in 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. The scientists largely endorsed the administration¡¦s research plan, but they warned that the administration procedures for vetting reports on climate could result in excessive political interference with science. (New York Times, June 8, 2005)

Another political appointee, who played an influential role in adjusting language in government reports on climate science, was Dr. Harlan L. Watson, the chief climate negotiator for the State Department. He wrote an October 4, 2002 memo to James Mahoney, the head of the United States Climate Change Science Program and an appointee of Bush. Watson ¡§strongly¡¨ recommended cutting boxes of text referring to the findings of a National Academy of Sciences panel on climate and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He wrote, ¡§Do not include an appropriate recognition of the underlying uncertainties and the tentative nature of a number of the assertions.¡¨ (New York Times, June 8, 2005)

4. BUSH PRESSES THE EUROPEAN UNION TO REJECT KYOTO

Despite over-all support for the Kyoto Protocol among the European countries, corporations such as Ford Europe, Lufthansa, and the German utility firm RWE united to defeat its passage. A plan was improvised to unite major international companies, academics, think-tanks, commentators, journalists, and lobbyists from across Europe in an effort to destroy the European Union¡¦s support for the treaty. (Britain¡¦s The Independent, December 8, 2005)

The goal of the ¡§European Sound Climate Policy Coalition¡¨ plan was to have anti-Kyoto position papers, expert spokesmen, detailed advice, and networking instantly available to any politician or company who wanted to question the wisdom of proceeding with Kyoto. (Britain¡¦s The Independent, December 8, 2005)

The plan was drawn up by Chris Horner, a senior official with the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute and a veteran campaigner against Kyoto and against the evidence of climate change. Horner, whose CEI group received almost $1.5 million from ExxonMobil, believed that Europe could be successfully influenced by such a policy coalition just as the Bush administration had been. (Britain¡¦s The Independent, December 8, 2005)

As international uproar against the United States continued, the Bush administration promised the European Union leaders that he would not interfere with their efforts to carry out the Kyoto Protocol, Bush set up roadblocks to interfere with their commitment to agreement. Since the Kyoto conference, participating nations began negotiating ground rules for a binding treaty to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. During consultations in the Netherlands, the United States delegation raised objections on several issues in an attempt to torpedo the treaty. (Los Angeles Times, July 6, 2001)

5. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CHANGES OFFICIAL REPORTS ON CLIMATE

The Bush administration regularly edited government climate reports to downplay the importance of global warming. Phil Cooney served as chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. That institution shaped much of the United States environmental policy. Prior to coming to the White House, Cooney was a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute. (New York Times, June 8, 2005)

In early 2005, Cooney came under fire for radically changing a number of 2002 and 2003 official reports on climate change. In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, Cooney removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports. Cooney implemented dozens of changes by inserting such subtle phrases as ¡§significant and fundamental¡¨ before the word ¡§uncertainties.¡¨ He hoped to produce doubt about findings that most climate experts upheld. (New York Times, June 8, 2005)

In one instance in an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, Our Changing Planet, Cooney stressed the sense of uncertainty by adding the word ¡§extremely¡¨ to this sentence: ¡§The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult.¡¨ (New York Times, June 8, 2005)

In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, Cooney crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was ¡§straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings.¡¨ (New York Times, June 8, 2005)

Cooney also made changes to the 2003 report entitled Strategic Plan for the United States Climate Change Science Program. The report described the reorganization of government climate research that was requested by Bush in his first speech on the issue in June 2001. The document was reviewed by an expert panel assembled in 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. The scientists largely endorsed the Bush administration¡¦s research plan, but they warned that the White House¡¦s procedures for vetting reports on climate could result in excessive political interference with science. (New York Times, June 8, 2005)

Harlan L. Watson was another Bush administration appointee who doctored reports on climate change. He served as chief climate negotiator for the State Department, but he had no experience or background in climate research. (New York Times, June 8, 2005) In an October 4, 2002 memo to James Mahoney, the head of the United States Climate Change Science Program, Watson ¡§strongly¡¨ recommended cutting boxes of text referring to the findings of a National Academy of Sciences panel on climate and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The latter was a United Nations body that periodically reviewed research on human-caused climate change. (New York Times, June 8, 2005)

Watson wrote that the boxes of text ¡§do not include an appropriate recognition of the underlying uncertainties and the tentative nature of a number of the assertions.¡¨ (New York Times, June 8, 2005)

5. BUSH SCIENTISTS COULD NOT SPEAK FREELY

Scientists hired for climate research for the federal government said the Bush administration made it difficult for them to speak forthrightly about how global warming was changing. (San Francisco Chronicle, April 16, 2006)

Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said that Bush administration officials chastised them for speaking on policy questions. The Bush White House removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases, and conference Web sites. The Bush administration investigated news leaks and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. (San Francisco Chronicle, April 16, 2006)

6. THE U.S. WALKS OUT OF THE U.N. CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE IN 2005

In November and December 2005, 157 countries -- excluding the United States -- agreed separately to extend the Kyoto agreement. Delegates to the United Nations Climate Change Conference met in Montreal to discuss the protocol. Then on December 9, American delegates led by Harlan Watson walked out over the wording of a draft statement calling for international co-operation on the issue. They signed a revised version after making only trivial changes. The United States negotiators shifted their position on the joint statement because the Bush administration was stung by criticism of its stance at the meeting in the United States press. (London¡¦s The Observer, December 9, 2005)

The change came after a well-received conference speech from former President Bill Clinton, in which he said that Bush¡¦s main reason for not joining Kyoto -- that it would damage the United States economy -- was ¡§flat wrong.¡¨ Clinton said if the United States ¡§had a serious, disciplined effort to apply on a large scale existing clean energy and energy conservation technologies... We could meet and surpass the Kyoto targets easily in a way that would strengthen, not weaken, our economies.¡¨ (London¡¦s The Observer, December 9, 2005)

7. THE COURT ORDERS BUSH TO TELL THE TRUTH

In the summer of 2007, District Court Judge Saundra Armstrong ordered the Bush administration to issue two scientific reports on global warming, siding with environmentalists who sued the White House for failing to produce the documents. (Associated Press, August 22, 2007)