Scientists being paid off to discredit Global Warming and the IPCC

Scientists being paid off to discredit Global Warming Research and the IPCC

www.guardian.co.uk

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".

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.cnn.com
liberalvaluesblog.com
www.nowpublic.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Can We Even Stop Global Warming?
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Complete)

[edit on 22-3-2007 by LogansRun]

With all the debates raging on ATS about Global Warming, I believe this story is very telling about the lengths some people will go to stop any action to reverse our contribution to the problem. Sadly, I have myself fallen prey to the polarizing affects this topic has on people. To many, you are either an "alarmist" or a "skeptic or a nay-sayer". I believe these labels only damage the credibility of those interested in the truth, as well as those who recognize a problem for what it is. I hope that this thread will expose more actions of those who truly wish to derail the work of the IPCC and the worlds leading climate scientists.

The IPCC report has some inconsistencies as I learned earlier today, however the discovery of this article will only lead me toward a mountain of more research I have yet to do.


www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mods - I had not intended to post this in "breaking news" as this was a story from last month. I am however suprised that this wasn't covered anywhere in the forums here - at least none that I could find.

Please move this thread to the appropriate place if need be.

I think this is farely old news.

Most scientist dont discredit global warming. Obviously its happening. But what many scientist question is rather or not humans are responsible for this. There was a thread on here a couple weeks ago that said our solar system is actually getting hotter. Mars is experiencing "global warming" for instance. Our sun is hotter then it has been too etc... Global warming is happening, but are humans the root cause of it all?

[edit on 023131p://5103pm by semperfoo]

the thing is despite claims to the contrary we really don't know if the other planets are experinicing any form of long term global warming after all our records of the tempatures on other planets goes back to the late 50's and 60's whereas with ice cores and the like we have records going back hundreds of thousands of years. SO to brush off global warming by claiming all the other planets are warming is disingenious at best.

This is something I have been well aware of for quite some time.

I will say this, I once was a firm believer that global warming was caused solely by the actions of man. However, now that I have read and listened to all of the arguments I will say that while it is fool hardy to think that man plays no role in global warming, I don't think man is the only factor.

I do believe that the earth does periodically go through warming and cooling trends. However, we may be speeding up the process and possibly intensifying it.

Some scientists are paid by governments and other political bodies to discredit natural global warming and to solely report on man made global warming and it's possible future "effects". What is the difference? One is acceptable yet the other is not... Don't tell me one is the undisputed truth...

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Some scientists are paid by governments and other political bodies to discredit natural global warming and to solely report on man made global warming and it's possible future "effects". What is the difference? One is acceptable yet the other is not... Don't tell me one is the undisputed truth...

Can you provide a link to show that?

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
This is something I have been well aware of for quite some time.

I will say this, I once was a firm believer that global warming was caused solely by the actions of man. However, now that I have read and listened to all of the arguments I will say that while it is fool hardy to think that man plays no role in global warming, I don't think man is the only factor.

I do believe that the earth does periodically go through warming and cooling trends. However, we may be speeding up the process and possibly intensifying it.

I fully agree with this, however I dont know of anyone who is claiming (or ever claimed) that man was the sole cause. There is far too much evidence to support mans role, however much of the evidence on "both sides" is distorted to support a higher agenda.

Originally posted by semperfoo
I think this is farely old news.

Most scientist dont discredit global warming.

[edit on 023131p://5103pm by semperfoo]

It is old news, I didn't mean to post it in breaking news. As far as the title, I left out the word "research" after global warming. I believe that would have been far more appropriate. I didn't mean to infer that they were trying to discredit the idea that GW exists.

Originally posted by LogansRun
however much of the evidence on "both sides" is distorted to support a higher agenda.

True. It's amazing how much this has become a mainstream topic over the last 8-12 months. I mean, 2-3 years ago you would hear something about it it occasionally, but here recently it is on almost all of the talk radio programs and some T.V news programs. It makes me wonder what is actually trying to be revealed here.

What we really have to wonder is why in the world would anyone need to pay $10,000, which is not really a lot of money, to discredit the IPCC when it has been discredited already for so long.....

The IPCC was funded for the sole purpose of claiming anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of Global Warming.

The IPCC used the Hockey Sti9ck Graph for three of it's reports, and that graph has been discredited and shown to be a fraud...yet for some reason "Exxon and whatever other company need to pay anyone to discredit the IPCC"?.....

Anyways, it is obvious that this is a sham, and a red herring to try to discredit the facts that there are natural factors which are a lot more important than anthropogenic CO2 yet when some people feel their "religion", the Global Warming scare is a religion, they always have to claim "those who post any evidence against their religion are "paid off to do so"....

This is really getting pathetic.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
What we really have to wonder is why in the world would anyone need to pay $10,000, which is not really a lot of money, to discredit the IPCC when it has been discredited already for so long.....

The IPCC was funded for the sole purpose of claiming anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of Global Warming.

The IPCC used the Hockey Sti9ck Graph for three of it's reports, and that graph has been discredited and shown to be a fraud...yet for some reason "Exxon and whatever other company need to pay anyone to discredit the IPCC"?.....

Anyways, it is obvious that this is a sham, and a red herring to try to discredit the facts that there are natural factors which are a lot more important than anthropogenic CO2 yet when some people feel their "religion", the Global Warming scare is a religion, they always have to claim "those who post any evidence against their religion are "paid off to do so"....

This is really getting pathetic.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Grow up. This is proof positive of the depths in which people are willing to go to truly silence the issue once and for all. I honestly read some of your links and kept an open mind (if you would bother to read some of my later posts in your swindle thread) but you are something. You have absolutely no desire to look at something objectively. There is nothing "pathetic" about this except that people would stoop so low to block scientific discussion on a topic. Do you think this is made up?

I am saying this here and now since Muaddib continues to post false info. I dont believe that GW is caused soley by man. I never claimed to do so. I am not aware of anyone else claiming that either. There are plenty of credible scientists that believe that man plays a role. There are plenty of credible scientists that believe man doesnt play a role as well. The difference, is that I am far more convinced by the scientists who say we do play a role simply because I believe they have more compelling evidence to support their case.

I also admit that there are issues with the IPCC report. If it is so messed up as Muaddib continues to assert, why does a right wing think tank need to pay people off to spread dis info?? Again, I am not accusing you of this, even though you will most likely claim that I am.

Stop lumping everything together, that is an extremest move.

[From OP link]
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.

Another telling statement. Why is Exxon funding scientists to go against the IPCC report if credible scientists could come forward and do so themselves?

Originally posted by LogansRun
I also admit that there are issues with the IPCC report. If it is so messed up as Muaddib continues to assert, why does a right wing think tank need to pay people off to spread dis info?? Again, I am not accusing you of this, even though you will most likely claim that I am.

That's what I always wonder. If global warming is so "false," why is GW so vehemently denied by those who have the most to gain by us thinking that GW is false? That which is vehemently opposed is usually too close to the truth.

Originally posted by LogansRun

Can you provide a link to show that?

Can you provide evidence that "any scientist was paid off"?... Because if you would have botherd to read the article you gave it says "scientists are being offered"...not that they are being "paid off"...big difference..

You are talking about disinformation, yet time and again you exagerate, lie, and defame people when it has been you doing those things you claim others are doing.

Are you being "paid off" to make these claims and try to derail threads claiming "you debunked evidence presented when you have not done that at all"?...

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by LogansRun
I am saying this here and now since Muaddib continues to post false info.

I haven't posted any false info, if anyone is lying, trying to defame people who disagree with you, it is noone else than that person you see in your mirror every morning...

As an example of your dishonesty, the name of this thread is misleading, in the article it says "scientists being offered, yet you make it sound like they have been "paid off" already, when you haven't posted any proof of "your" claim.

BTW, if there is any truth to what is claimed in that article, which i kind of doubt, shame on whoever in that company made that "offer".

What i don't see anyone asking is what scientist is going to taint his/her name for $10,000... For someone working at a Mcdonnalds $10,000 is a lot of money, but no respectable scientist would touch $10,000 and taint his/her name so that everytime he/she made a research this can be pointed out at them, and their data can be dismissed because they once accepted oil money to debunk the IPCC, when the IPCC by itself has done a great job at showing that it is nothing more than a sham...

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
What i don't see anyone asking is what scientist is going to taint his/her name for $10,000... For someone working at a Mcdonnalds $10,000 is a lot of money, but no respectable scientist would touch $10,000 and taint his/her name so that everytime he/she made a research this can be pointed out at them, and their data can be dismissed because they once accepted oil money to debunk the IPCC, when the IPCC by itself has done a great job at showing that it is nothing more than a sham...

[edit on 22-3-2007 by Muaddib]

Come on, to say a few derisive words against something that many people such as yourself do not believe in? Yeah they would. Who are you trying to kid?