Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
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.
The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.
"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."
One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.
The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.
Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."
Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."
On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.
BBC(?) also had an one hour documentary about almost the same, Fred Singer getting money for denial again and Bush's staff changing alarms etc. One in the White house was a lawyer from Exxon, after censoring reports he got a well paid job with Exxon, politicians went that way also. One admitted it all and changed 180 degrees: "We must put political disputes aside and do all we can to stop climate-problems"
Anyone who knows more of above?
Does Obama seem to be on a good Change path now?
(No sceptic issues against climate-change in this thread also please, as we have seen everywhere before)
PS
We may also assume, some paid ones write in Forums as this and others, also may be moderators in some, due to a massive naive spamming everywhere with a very simple content often.
Your title is misleading; did anyone TAKE the bribes?
$10,000 is a drop in the bucket to what anyone could make if they continued to espouse either side, pro or anti, and any scientist would know that. Seems like an awfully minimal bribe to me.
As for your addendum, that applies to everyone in every forum - many folks are not on here to voice 'opinions' but to promote their own agenda - on either side of any discussion, from realtors to global warming dissidents.
I doubt if the scientists arguing that human economies can impact the climate were bribed. There are no economic entities with as much to gain or spend by finding that fossil fuels are a major factor in global warming as there are commerical interests have to lose if their sales are restricted. Besides you do not have to bribe (at the risk of ruining their reputation) scientists to provide their conclusions and how they arrived at the them. You do have to pay them, and pay them well, to get them to lie.
I doubt if the scientists arguing that human economies can impact the climate were bribed. There are no economic entities with as much to gain or spend by finding that fossil fuels are a major factor in global warming as there are commerical interests have to lose if their sales are restricted. Besides you do not have to bribe (at the risk of ruining their reputation) scientists to provide their conclusions and how they arrived at the them. You do have to pay them, and pay them well, to get them to lie.
Bwaahaaahaaahaaahaaa!
You are sure that scientists on the other side were bribed, but equally sure that scientists on the side that you espouse were NOT bribed?
See my comment above.
By the way, last I heard, solar energy was a commercial interest. Wind energy was a commercial interest. The entire green movement is a commercial interest (and I'm an EcoBroker, I should know!).
See, I support sustainable energy and ecologically sound actions, and I STILL know that both sides have something financial to gain or lose. Because that's just how it works in the real world.
Why don't we stick with what we know. AEI offered $10,000 for scientist to write anti-global warming articles. That just one of a number of climate change denier organizations that have been similarly exposed. It's nothing new.
About 90% of the anti-climate change rhetoric on this site is straight from those organizations. I suspect most of the deniers on this site are unpaid drones.
I AM sticking to what I know. Which is (a) there is motivation on both sides of any given argument of this scope to lead to the temptation to "cheat", (b) there is financial gain or loss on both sides of this particular topic, potentially leading to a. above, and (c) there is a strong tendency in human nature to deny that it applies to your side of the argument just as much as it does to the other.
Those are things I absolutely know. I'd have to blind myself deliberately (or be blind due to c.) not to know those things.
You are sure that scientists on the other side were bribed, but equally sure that scientists on the side that you espouse were NOT bribed?
See my comment above.
By the way, last I heard, solar energy was a commercial interest. Wind energy was a commercial interest. The entire green movement is a commercial interest (and I'm an EcoBroker, I should know!).
See, I support sustainable energy and ecologically sound actions, and I STILL know that both sides have something financial to gain or lose. Because that's just how it works in the real world.
You are exactly right.
There is BIG MONEY in Global Warming! In fact, it has become one of the most lucrative businesses out there. Al Gore has made hundreds of millions of dollars off this business known as Global Warming.
Like you, I live as "green" as possible. But I'm not naive enough to think that if I don't, the world is going to melt within the next decade.
I AM sticking to what I know. Which is (a) there is motivation on both sides of any given argument of this scope to lead to the temptation to "cheat", (b) there is financial gain or loss on both sides of this particular topic, potentially leading to a. above, and (c) there is a strong tendency in human nature to deny that it applies to your side of the argument just as much as it does to the other.
Those are things I absolutely know. I'd have to blind myself deliberately (or be blind due to c.) not to know those things.
My sentiments exactly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). 