Warning: file_get_contents(http://webbiscuits.net/images/blan.gif) [function.file-get-contents]: failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found in /home/residenc/public_html/wp-content/themes/residencynotes/header.php on line 26
Friday, February 2nd 2007

$10,000 To Flog The IPCC Report

The Guardian reports that the American Enterprise Insitute (we’ll let you guess who funds this think tank) is offering $10,000 to climate scientists who write negative papers criticizing the IPCC report.

The AEI…

…offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

They sounds pretty reasonable,

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”.

And indeed, while clearly with an agenda (what think tank isn’t), the article in no way states what percentage of AEI’s funding has come from the oil industry (or other industry with major stakes in seeing doubt cast on the IPCC’s findings).

Still hilarity is to follow if we take The Guardian at its word. I love British media and their inability to keep their bias from seeping around. Even with that little poke, this conference doesn’t exactly sound like a group of geniuses,

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.

The Guardian makes no mention on what that organization is, nor does it provide any other details of this conference, it uses the terms “former scientist,” and “VIPs.” Journalism by the book. Still, it is effective at making me think this conference is a bunch of quacks. That does not mean that skepticism over many parts of Global Warming (not just its cause or existence) is not held by many knowledge non-quacks. And it does not mean that this should not be a real topic of debate.

And that debate is being silenced by the groups and scientists like the most vocal participants of the IPCC. These are self judged leading experts in this field, who basically all shared the same mindset before the Working Group even got started (don’t tell me there was true debate or that the conclusions of the report weren’t foregone), and now use rhetoric as if any criticism is completely bogus. Baloney.