Anonymous
Anonymous asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 decade ago

Why have scientists been offered $10,000 each to undermine the IPCC reports on climate change?

This reward was offered by the AEI (American Enterprise Institute) a right wing group who aim is to promote buisiness and free enterprise. Many of its staff have also worked as conultants for the bush administration.

AEI have also recieved over $1.6million from ExxonMobil, and Lee Raymond (former head of ExxonMobil) is vice chairman of AEI board of trustees.

Check your sources www.sourcewatch.org

Update:

bob tv - have you checked the sources of the "sun spot" theory?

12 Answers

Relevance
  • Trevor
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Just mentioned this in my previous answer, we were obviously both thinking about the same thing at exactly the same time.

    It's not just to undermine the IPCC report but to produce any evidence that refutes global warming. ExxonMobil are funding the payments.

    Bottom line - despite years and years of intensive research by highly qualified scientists, ExxonMobil haven't been able to come up with any reliable evidence to refute global warming so it now appears they're effectively bribing anyone to say anything in a desperate attempt to get hold of something.

    ------------------------

    EDIT. To Bob:

    Mars - south polar ice cap thawing, north polar ice cap freezing, overall trend may be warming, not enough data to say for sure, climate and atmosphere incomparable to Earth, any warming likely to be the result of global dust storms. Why no warming on Saturn or Jupiter of Venus or the other 164 planets and moons where no warming has been observed? Reason - warming is unique to each planet and moon, no common cause such as the sun.

    High sun spot activity means very small increase in solar radiation, average heat from the sun is 1366 Watts per metre sqaured per year, difference between max and min is 1.3 W/m2/yr, enough to cause changes over thousands and millions of years, not enough for short term changes.

    CO2 has been much higher in history (up to 4 times as much) but it's not tied to animal or plant levels. Highest levels occured when no life or only single celled organisms on earth. Historically levels have been tied to long term natural variations. Curent level rising faster than ever and highest since humans appeared on Earth.

    Magnetic field constantly changes - mangetic north pole travels about 160km per day before returning to almost the same spot. Polar switching occurs from time to time but like all magnetism it has no effect on anything relevant to global warming. The planet doesn't move and greenhouse gases aren't magnetic.

    Plate tectonics has almost nothing to do with global warming. Movements so minute that any shift in Earths position is measured in millimetres per century.

    Ice ages caused by natural variations on Earth and the Sun, cycle is approx every 100 million years and is an extremely slow process - avaerage temperature change is 1 degree per 2.5 million years (20 degrees change from hot to cold).

    Global warming isn;t new, it's been scientifically studied and known about for over 100 years. The science behind it is well studied and is solid.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Because there is no evidence that anyone has been offered 10 grand for phony anti-global warming science. Science is based on the scientific method and not on consenses. For any hypothesis, there is going to be an antithesis. This is how reason works.

    There are still some questions that need to be resolved on the global warming issue. One is, why is global warming also taking place on the planet Mars which is also have a melting of it's ice caps? What does the high sun spot activity mean? Why are there more storms on Jupitar? There were times of high CO2 levels in earths early history and CO2 levels only came down during the event of large animal life on earth. The reduction was quite slow so high oxygen levels and low C02 is a recent phenomena considering the overall history of the earth.

    We still don't know if the earth's magnetic feild is ready for a re-polarisation which is due every 100,000 years. This may be the time. It has nothing to do with Mankind.

    What causes plate tectonics? What caused the ice age?

    I'm all for alternative fuel and going green. I think we have enough reasons to do this without going into psuedo-science.

    The current "global warming movement" has the danger of discrediting the entire environmental cause. That is why so many scientists are starting to speak out.

    We have real issues like saving the rain forests, re-forestation, wildlife and nature preservation, alternative energy sources etc. and this global warming psuedo science is making all the green movements into fools like the emporer wearing no clothes, the global warming theory has too many holes. It was not ready to present to the world yet. Unfortunately, the movie came out before the science was sufficiently up to date.

    Sadly, already, we can't call it "global warming" but may have to call it "global climate change." Yet questions arise as to how much is actually a natural earth cycle that is dependent on the sun spot activity and the earth's internal magnetism.

    I assure you that I'm not being paid by the oil companies. I'm as liberal as one can get, perhaps further left than most liberals. Science is my only belief.

    Source(s): For scientists opposed to global warming theory check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_op... Perhaps someone can do research to find out if anyone of them are on some kind of payroll from an oil comapany. For understanding the danger the popularisation of an incomplete theory does to the credibility of Science, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXc9H5JSyow&mode=re... It's a film the gives other scientific points of view
  • Darwin
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    Lets take a look at the numbers shall we

    Exxon-Mobil = $16 million among 43 groups in the 8 years covering 1998 to 2005

    Union of Concerned Scientists = $12 million in 2004 alone.

    The union of concerned scientists defines global warming as:

    Global warming is one of the most serious challenges facing us today. To protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations, we must reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases by using the technology, know-how, and practical solutions already at our disposal.

    Interesting a far left environmentalist group pushing millions into global warming research, who also promotes alternative energy companies, now their science couldn't be biased could it?

    The fact is BOTH sides of the issue have groups of scientists who are funded be people who either want to prove or disprove global warming.

    Its pretty sad when you can't answer the questions raised by the skeptics so you have to attack the scientists personally. Next time you want to blame any anti global warming science on big oil remember where your science came from.

  • 1 decade ago

    If something is done about climate change, that will hurt the profits big oil companies and members of OPEC as well as energy providers that use coal as their primary source of fuel. Big oil is taking the most slack for this problem, so if global warming weren't a problem then that would prevent some people from searching for alternatives. Without an alternative, big oil companies will continue to make record profits.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Hyped up media sensationalism.Could be an honest attempt to increase funding of an important federal issue.

    http://www.grist.org/cgi-bin/printthis.pl?uri=/new...

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Ask yourself what it costs to have to admit to global warming on a governmental level

    changes in industry

    changes in local government

    changes in energy production

    changes in all kinds or equipment ,machinery and transport

    government vigilance,retraining agents and police

    the list is endless and so is the expense

    now ask yourself who has to pay most of this --

    the owners of large businesses, corporations ,the super wealthy are gonna get hurt in the pockets ,which they hate most of all .

    and these are the people who run the government from behind the scenes

    now the why has evaporated i´m sure . ,

  • baskin
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    The ipcc checklist is incorrect on many ranges and scientists specially atmospheric and statistical scientist understand the checklist is ripe with fraud and incorrect information. how is michael moores haliburton inventory doing?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    OH, screw you Jimmy. Why do you put down my previous answer? Sorry, this answer isn't about your question. I will delete this one. Arghh, I think that was unfair, he's probably a lazy slacker just by the way he talks. A little hint: I don't think he's that smart.

    Seriously, I am pissed off!! - you jerk. Haven't you ever considered that you could offend somebody? I should report you for abuse.

  • 1 decade ago

    Whatever source did you get this from? Did anyone ever ask who paid Algore (who probably not been near a science book since grammar school) to promote his hogwash? People on the liberal side will say anything to undermine the opposition.

  • 1 decade ago

    Cause the greatest way to get geeks to make stuff is to offer them money.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.