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.
“Lobbyist like this …. seek and buy ‘dissent'” – This is just like lawyers! Anything for a buck or a gun for hire. Which is worse?
So many big words!
That pic is completely absurd and just shows your own bias.
As George Carlin says – the Earth was just fine before humans came along, and it will still be fine after we are all gone and replaced by something else… as is the cycle that has occurred for milions of years.
Mike, don’t underestimate the power of semi-evolved apes.
#3 — you have no understanding of “business ethics” as a contradiction in terms, dude. Or does that reflect your own acceptance of corruption as appropriate?
#3 — That pic is apt and just shows your own bias.
Global warming is a fact. Humans contribute and that is a fact. The degree to which they contribute is a worthy question to pursue, but that they do is established.
Evolution is also a fact. But my theory is that while some humans evolved from primates, some others may have evolved from sheep as evidenced by their unblinking willingness to follow the herd to the slaughter.
What a strange about-face the US Gov’t has done.
Now the US will race ahead to become the worlds greenest country? Surpassing Kyoto?
How ironic. What about Al Gore’s Nobel prize nomination!?!?!?
Well the Sheep Factor will definitely help the US population and businesses follow in their leader’s Green Path.
#7 – I agree: The left’s base is a joke.
I’m interested in this new study that a lot of nations are behind. Maybe that will push us towards some real, long term solutions.
I more think that there are many people who are WANTING us to take the lead in climate change, and now the leaders are following the people.
It has long been known that Bushco, Inc. and the rest of the oil barons in this country have been using junk science to dispel the truth about climate change.
What with the news that came out of the UN today about climate change, anyone who stands in the way of the people on the planet trying to reverse this, will be seen as standing in the way of progress. Real progress!
The point of this post — beyond the bribe offer — is the collusion of the American press.
I rec’d an email pointing out the story — from an editor in Australia. All the early coverage of the bribery attempt came from the UK, France, Canada. AFP was the only news service to pick it up.
Yes, the report is the big story, today. But, a hard look at the corruption that characterizes the response of the Oil Patch Boys and their tame politicians is part of the long term understanding of what we’re all dealing with. If you do a search, even now, for “Scientists cash dispute climate” — you’ll find a half-dozen or so articles while there are thousands about the report itself.
Just trying to nudge you back on topic, folks. 🙂
#7 – You should check out what Michael Crichton has to say about global warming. His most prevalent point (IMO) is that so many “scientific facts” have been declared so simply because it is stated as such and that the “majority of scientists” say it is so. Crichton lists many many examples of such “facts” that were commonly held as true that, in fact, weren’t.
As well, the human contribution to global warming is still very very debatable. There are many studies that conclude that normal factors (such as volcanic activity) deposit vastly more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than humans do. I also personally feel that the Tunguska event of 1908 (or was it 1909?) was a huge factor in the start of the global warming trend.
Furthermore, and Crichton makes a great point here, that if humans are to blame for global warming, then why did the warming trend start right at the dawn of industrialization? Shouldn’t there have been a period where the 10 automobiles and 6 factories on the planet didn’t begin to cause global warming as we are allegedly observing today? And shouldn’t the warming trend be far greater today than it was in 1915? Finally, why was there a global cooling trend in the 40s and 50s? Certainly all those tanks and planes and cars and factories that were being used at the time weren’t hybrids. Or electric.
I am solidly for us doing all that we can to reduce our foul emissions into the atmosphere. But I believe that we will find that even if we ceased all such emissions that the planet would still continue its warming trend.
Also, #4, don’t bet on it. We, as a species, are completely insignificant to the matters of Mother Earth. She’s survived all manner of cataclysms before and she’ll be around long after we’re all just petroleum products for the next sentient species here.
#12 — if you’re too lazy to look beyond Crichton, and since you obviously confuse weather with climate — I suggest you find a nice spot at sea level, say, on the Floriduh coast to build your hut of straw.
Iff-ing and believe-ing doesn’t scratch an itch in peer reviewed science.
#12 – While I’m certainly right-of-center, I don’t understand why it’s so hard to accept that…
1. Global warming is happening.
2. Global warming is caused both by both nature and man.
3. That we don’t know to what percentage man is involved.
4. That we should know to what percentage man is involved.
5. We should encourage through the tax system ways of eliminating emissions from man made devices.
What’s the risk of #5? If all that comes of it is that the air stinks a little less, great! We just came out of a two week inversion here in SLC, where the air was thick as soup and the dirtiest in the nation. Even if the temperature keeps going up, I’d like to not have to breate that much particulate matter every winter.
Oh, the Earth will still be here but it may not be livable. Frankly, I think that is a good thing. The human race needs a culling in the worst way.
#12 – the risk of #5 is that as with all programs, government isn’t interested in fixing the problem, but in perpetuating it so that it can keep hold of power and continue to spend money liberally. So goes the war on poverty, drugs, terror, etc. The “war on global warming” won’t be any different, it’ll just make alot of politically connected people richer than they already are. We’ll get great sounding acts like “Cool The Earth Act of 2008” and “Greenhouse Gone Act of 2010” that spend gobs of money on programs that never really get us anywhere. As always, the increase in standard of living will continue to slow down and we will be too busy working to pay for these boondoggles to really complain about it.
As for scientists receiving money from oil companies, it’s despicable, but it’s not really much different than scientists receiving government grants for producing reports that government wants.
All participants in issues such as this have a financial incentive. Crying crisis can be quite financially rewarding for researchers in a host of disciplines.
pretending it will go away is not a good solution. just think of the long term implications if it is not corrected..it could be terrible(see this).
18. Statements like “Looney left” certainly prove your unbiased and obviously well-informed stand on the issue.
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?
#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.