Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the “overwhelming scientific evidence” on global warming. “It’s a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims,” said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
“The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice,” he said.
Separate from Americans in denial, the callow and uncurious you would expect to turn their backs on scientific research — lobbyists like this are contemptible. Ignoring the overwhelming body of empirical evidence to seek and buy “dissent” is typical of the demagogues running our political establishment.
20 — let’s don’t forget we’re straying from the “path of enlightenment” that #18 advocates.
I wonder if that includes the purity of our bodily fluids?
Mankind was also responsible for the Ice Age too. Remember!!! …and the subsequent defrosting
#17 … I agree with both your arguements. There have been many non-human infuences to account for global warming and sealevel rises, but they are remarkably abscent from any summary review. If there is to be a scientific debate of this then it must be fair and open to input and review. This has the hall marks of a theological debate. Five hundred years of large scale agriculture has produced a rise in river delta seabeds, which entirely accounts for the tiny level increases in recorded tides. The orbit of the Earth takes it closer to the sun at about this time and the thermal output of the energy of the sun has increased steadily for the last few thousand years. Yes, CO2 and other gases have built up, but they are naturally respired from arctic wetlands in thaw and from the deforestation of jungle for agriculture. All overlooked, I’m afraid. The cold rhetoric from these committee’s of failed weather forecasters needs tempering.
Aside from scientific FACTS, there is a big ethical component to support the fight against global warming. Unless you are fully 100% sure that human activity is not having any detrimental effect on the earth, the only ethical thing to do is take the CONSERVATIVE side, and err for caution. That means taking whatever steps are necessary to reduce the influence of human activities. (BTW… whatever happened to conservative=cautious? It is becoming conservative=selfish.)
And looking towards a whole country’s activities and political directives and behaving accordingly is just a cheap cop-out… it is up to each person to take the initiative, and if you believe in the cause, to pressure others to behave more ethically also.
12 – you do realize State Of Fear was a work of fiction right?
That most of it’s claims were debunked years ago?
That its statistics and graphs were cherry-picked to support the story?
No? Well keep reading then, you’re not done yet.
State Of Fear was good because it forced me to examine my position. I did so and found that while it was a good set of talking points the book didn’t actually have a solid foundation.
I learnt a lot more about the truth of global warming because of it – however it doesn’t contain that truth.
the barn is burning down so lets discuss it.What should we do?
Conserving through efficiency is good. Conserving through sacrifice is unnacceptable. I have no problem with people sacrificing and feeling good about it, just don’t tell me I have to.
All hail Global Warming (TM) and the Maximum Carbon Footprint (TM) !
Mr. Newton is absolutely correct; the barn is burning down and here we are bloviating about it. We need to realize that this climate change we -are- experiencing, regardless of cause, is something we will -have- to deal with. If we build more inland cities, greenhouses, and food stores now, while the hills are green, we might not starve quite so much when they are brown, and when the masses from the coasts are camped out in our backyards. No number of pointing fingers are going to solve the very real problems we are about to experience, and if we just continue flapping our mouths billions of people will die.
As for buying science, as a scientist I can say that the biggest problem in the world is bought science, as it is a great way to deceive people. Unfortunately, the government is the prime culprit, but the lines between government and business are so blurred anymore I’m not sure this should surprise us.
#27: Conserving through sacrifice is unnacceptable [sic].”
And hence the tragedy of the commons…. You know, a little bit of sacrifice might do you a world of good.
There may be global warming, but I would rather call it solar system warming. Here’s why solar weather isn’t carried by the liberal news media. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
It’s easy to google “increased solar output nasa” to defeat the leftist statists who want to leverage this into world control.
You tell ‘em, Timbo. Them commie pinko scientists probably eat babies for breakfast, too. And twice on Sunday.
We’re all better off with proven money makers like Exxon in charge of the government.
We have two communities in my area called “Mandarin” and Orange Park” because they were major producers of citrus, a century ago. Then the winters got too cold and the citrus industry collapsed. Now it looks like the weather is mild enough to start growing citrus again.
Is anyone surprised by this? They have no shortage of money, why not?