ExxonMobil Funds "Misleading And Inaccurate Information" About Climate Change

[thoughtone]

source: The Guardian

Records show ExxonMobil gave hundreds of thousands of pounds to lobby groups that have published 'misleading and inaccurate information' about climate change

The world's largest oil company is continuing to fund lobby groups that question the reality of global warming, despite a public pledge to cut support for such climate change denial, a new analysis shows.

Company records show that ExxonMobil handed over hundreds of thousands of pounds to such lobby groups in 2008. These include the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in Dallas, Texas, which received $75,000 (£45,500), and the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC, which received $50,000.

According to Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, at the London School of Economics, both the NCPA and the Heritage Foundation have published "misleading and inaccurate information about climate change."

On its website, the NCPA says: "NCPA scholars believe that while the causes and consequences of the earth's current warming trend is [sic] still unknown, the cost of actions to substantially reduce CO2 emissions would be quite high and result in economic decline, accelerated environmental destruction, and do little or nothing to prevent global warming regardless of its cause."

The Heritage Foundation published a "web memo" in December that said: "Growing scientific evidence casts doubt on whether global warming constitutes a threat, including the fact that 2008 is about to go into the books as a cooler year than 2007". Scientists, including those at the UK Met Office say that the apparent cooling is down to natural changes and does not alter the long-term warming trend.

In its 2008 corporate citizenship report, published last year, ExxonMobil said it would cut funds to several groups that "divert attention" from the need to find new sources of clean energy.

The NCPA and Heritage Foundation are included among groups funded by ExxonMobil, according to details of its "2008 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments" published recently.

Ward said: "ExxonMobil has been briefing journalists for three years that they were going to stop funding these groups. The reality is that they are still doing it. If the world's largest oil company wants to fund climate change denial then it should be upfront about it, and not tell people it has stopped."

In 2006, Ward, then at the Royal Society, wrote to ExxonMobil to challenge the company's funding of such lobby groups. The move, revealed in the Guardian, prompted accusations of censorship and debate about whether experts should "police" the distribution of scientific information.

In an article on the Guardian website, Ward writes: "I have now written again to ExxonMobil to point out that these organisations publish misleading information about climate change on their websites, and to seek guidance on how to reconcile this fact with the pledge made by the company. I believe that the company should keep its promise by ending its financial support for lobby groups that mislead the public about climate change."

ExxonMobil said it annually reviews and adjusts its contributions to policy research groups. A spokesman said: "Only ExxonMobil speaks for ExxonMobil and our position on climate change is clear. We have the same concerns as people everywhere, and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We take the issue of climate change seriously and the risks warrant action."

 

[actinanass]

Really dude?

I guess you know the exact science of such things huh?

Aren't you a climatologist?

 

[thoughtone]

Really dude?

I guess you know the exact science of such things huh?

Aren't you a climatologist?

Are you?

 

[actinanass]

Are you?

So , its safe to say that we're outside looking in. However, I'm not for making policies on science that hasn't been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that we are causing global warming..

 

[thoughtone]

So , its safe to say that we're outside looking in. However, I'm not for making policies on science that hasn't been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that we are causing global warming..

Example:

Ward said: "ExxonMobil has been briefing journalists for three years that they were going to stop funding these groups. The reality is that they are still doing it. If the world's largest oil company wants to fund climate change denial then it should be upfront about it, and not tell people it has stopped."

You have not read the post.

 

[actinanass]

I have read the article. What you not understanding is that man made global warming has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. So, exxon has a right to fund whoever to debate that argument. The title itself, IMO, is very condescending because if the current reality is "man is the reason global warming is happening", than, pretty much any evidence debating such things would be called "misleading".

 

[thoughtone]

I have read the article. What you not understanding is that man made global warming has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. So, exxon has a right to fund whoever to debate that argument. The title itself, IMO, is very condescending because if the current reality is "man is the reason global warming is happening", than, pretty much any evidence debating such things would be called "misleading".

Did Bush/Cheney prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam had WMD? That didn't stop them from committing $1 trillion and countless lives to waste and the evidence from Global warming is way more credible.

Once again you are just saying anything, opinion. Your argument is weak because there is nothing to back them up. Post facts. Until you do that your future comments will be ignored by me. I know your ideology, try and convince me.

 

[Lamarr]

Did Bush/Cheney prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam had WMD? That didn't stop them from committing $1 trillion and countless lives to waste and the evidence from Global warming is way more credible.

Once again you are just saying anything, opinion. Your argument is weak because there is nothing to back them up. Post facts. Until you do that your future comments will be ignored by me. I know your ideology, try and convince me.

Thought, you & I can agree that Dubya jacked up the whole Iraq / WMD story. Since there are economic ramifications to accepting this science as fact, Wouldn't it only be right to perform a thorough investigation to quell any dissent that is still out there? After the last 8 yrs, shouldn't the burden of proof be on the govt? A lot of scientists say Gore is full of hot air, thats all. Plus I listened to that fool sell NAFTA to the public and he has zero credibility with me. But aren't those concerns far game?

Ok, now you can call me the "anti-war right-wing extremist"

 

[thoughtone]

Thought, you & I can agree that Dubya jacked up the whole Iraq / WMD story. Since there are economic ramifications to accepting this science as fact, Wouldn't it only be right to perform a thorough investigation to quell any dissent that is still out there? After the last 8 yrs, shouldn't the burden of proof be on the govt? A lot of scientists say Gore is full of hot air, thats all. Plus I listened to that fool sell NAFTA to the public and he has zero credibility with me. But aren't those concerns far game?

Ok, now you can call me the "anti-war right-wing extremist"

Records show ExxonMobil gave hundreds of thousands of pounds to lobby groups that have published 'misleading and inaccurate information' about climate change

Reread the opening post. Proof?

 

[actinanass]

Did Bush/Cheney prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam had WMD? That didn't stop them from committing $1 trillion and countless lives to waste and the evidence from Global warming is way more credible.

Once again you are just saying anything, opinion. Your argument is weak because there is nothing to back them up. Post facts. Until you do that your future comments will be ignored by me. I know your ideology, try and convince me.

Bush didn't, but clinton did...

Don't believe me....

You have to quit with the Iraq argument. This youtube vid will kill that shit every time.

BTW, does science ever prove anything? Last time I checked, science only answer a question with a question. Something you, and vegas love doing...

 

[thoughtone]

I have no idea what conclusion you are trying to draw by posting this. To briefly indulge you in this diversion from the issue originally posted, we now know the US was deeply involved with Iran/Iraq under the Reagan/Bush administration in assuring that the Iran/Iraq war came to a draw. In fact we (under the Reagan/Bush administration) supplied the gas and satellite logistics that were used against those Iranian civilians. Second the date on this 9-22-92. Gore was still a candidate, not Vice President. Finally, the Clinton administration had Saddam in check for 8 years. Remember the no fly zones.

Now back to the main issue as you have defined it, credibility. I’m sure you will argue for this:

source: Reuters

U.S. to study possible space-based defense

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress has approved $5 million for an independent study of possible space-based missile defenses, a potential step toward a system once mocked as "Star Wars."

The seed money was included in a little-noticed part of the 2009 Defense Appropriations bill, signed into law by President George W. Bush on September 30 as part of a catch-all funding measure.

U.S. defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp, Boeing Co and Northrop Grumman Corp could be big beneficiaries of any decision to move ahead with space-based defenses.

Last year, Congress rejected $10 million sought for such a study amid concerns it could lead to "weaponization" of space. The Bush administration had sought $10 million again this year to start a "testbed" in space, a sort of proof of concept.

The $5 million appropriation lets the Pentagon hire one or more entities to review the feasibility and advisability of adding space-based interceptors to the growing numbers of U.S. interceptor missiles on the ground and at sea.

The U.S. bulwark is designed to shoot down ballistic missiles in all stages of their flight. President Bush ordered the Pentagon to start fielding it four years ago to guard against a launch from North Korea or Iran, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency says on its website.

The new look at a space-based layer comes as a previously unstated premise for U.S. missile defense -- hedging against a potential threat from China -- is starting to be discussed openly in Washington.

An advisory board to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for instance, urged in a recently leaked draft report that the United States counter China's growing might with new missile defense capabilities, "including taking full advantage of space."

"The United States must explore the potential that space provides for missile defenses across the spectrum of threats," according to the draft report by the secretary's International Security Advisory Board and made available on the Washington Times website on October 1.

The $5 million was the first seed money for potential space-based interceptors since a Democratic-controlled Congress canceled such work in 1993. At the time, President Bill Clinton was said to be taking "the stars out of Star Wars," the derisive term applied to President Ronald Reagan's "strategic defense initiative" launched ten years earlier.

Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican who is a staunch missile defense proponent, recommended the study be done by an entity like the Institute for Defense Analyses -- a nonprofit that weighs national security issues for the government, particularly those requiring scientific and technical expertise.

"In the past 15 years, the ballistic missile threat has substantially increased and is now undeniable," he said in a September 29 speech on the Senate floor.

A pro-space-based missile defense panel, called the Independent Working Group, has estimated that a space-based system could be tested within three years at a cost of $3 billion to $5 billion.
It recommended deploying 1,000 space-based interceptors at a projected cost of $16.4 billion in 2005 dollars to provide "high-confidence" protection against attacks involving up to 200 warheads.

Critics argue that putting interceptors in space would be much more costly and undercut larger U.S. interests by "weaponizing" space.

A 2003 American Physical Society study found that intercepting a single intercontinental ballistic missile from space would require a five- to ten-fold increase in the United States' annual space-launch capabilities.

Opponents also say the United States stands to lose the most by putting weapons in space and inviting potential attacks on its vast array of space systems that it is keen to protect. Space-based technologies help run everything from financial networks to navigation and the military's pinpoint targeting capabilities.

"Ironically, by trying to protect our space assets, space-based missile defense instead makes them vulnerable," said Victoria Samson at the private Center for Defense Information.

Selective questioning of science?

 

[Panameno718]

Al Gore Confronted On Climategate In Chicago

 

[gonzo8402]

Re: Al Gore Confronted On Climategate In Chicago

lmao @ no one giving a fuck.

this dude sounded crazy. went about it poorly.

 

[gonzo8402]

Re: Al Gore Confronted On Climategate In Chicago


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro0-7U8UtvI

 

[Deuterion]

Re: Al Gore Confronted On Climategate In Chicago

lmao @ no one giving a fuck.

this dude sounded crazy. went about it poorly.

Yeah they always go about it the wrong way and look like crazies.

 

[Young Sir]

Re: Al Gore Confronted On Climategate In Chicago

I love America..

 

[Young Sir]

Re: Al Gore Confronted On Climategate In Chicago

Dude. It is not that they don't believe in global warming. Just that CO2 is not the cause of the warming. I.E. We don't need a new CO2 tax when it is proven that it is not the cause. The treaty that will be signed will supersede our constitution. The treaty calls for a new gov body that all countries will have to be submit too. They will also will be given a Military to enforce there will on all countries. Which is why they are calling him a traitor.. and many think this new GOV body is the NWO that bush sr. and Kissinger talk about.


The Copenhagen Climate treaty.

 

[QueEx]

Re: C l i m a t e G a t e

<font size="4"><center>

"Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light
but don't change scientific consensus on global warming;
Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific
misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of
man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded." </font size>
</center>




<IFRAME SRC="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/">link</A>

</IFRAME>

 

[Lamarr]

Re: C l i m a t e G a t e

Now the Global Warming crowd is telling you the sun aint got nothin to do with the weather. Next, they will tell us that seasons are abnormal weather behavior. F R A U D ! ! ! !


'No Sun Link' To Climate Change

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

Warming trend

The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.

The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.

"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.

 

[QueEx]

Re: C l i m a t e G a t e

Now the Global Warming crowd is telling you the sun aint got nothin to do with the weather. Next, they will tell us that seasons are abnormal weather behavior. F R A U D ! ! ! !

Maybe I just missed it, but could you please point out the part of the BBC article that says what you're saying.

QueEx

 

[Lamarr]

Re: C l i m a t e G a t e

Maybe I just missed it, but could you please point out the part of the BBC article that says what you're saying.

QueEx

I guess you did ! ! ! ! Stop the word games & look at this for what it is.

Climate has been changing every day that you & I been alive. Now they've drawn a conclusion that the Sun has no link to that change. The simple reason "these scientists" say it's man-made is because they cant tax the Sun - but they can definately tax you & I. It aint about the environment, this is about $$$ (and a lot of it!) Real environmentalists understand their movement has been hijacked by a bunch of corporatist, globalist Muh-Fukaz's. As this whole thing plays out, it is nothing more than a transfer of wealth, out of this country into the hands of a very few

A Scam to surpress human activity, globally!

 

[Panameno718]

Re: C l i m a t e G a t e

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.

Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)

A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.

As Richard North says: This is serial.

UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears
I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil

And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent

And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:

The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.

One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.

Not, of course, dear readers that I’m in any way tempted to crow about these latest revelations. After all, so many of my colleagues, junior and senior, have been backing me on this one to the hilt….

Oh, if anyone speaks Russian, here’s the full report

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...anipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

 

[LennyNero1972]

Re: C l i m a t e G a t e

This Climate treaty is going to give the industrialized nations complete control of the planet's resources. Trust all of this bullshit.

 

[QueEx]

Re: C l i m a t e G a t e

I guess you did ! ! ! ! Stop the word games & look at this for what it is.

Climate has been changing every day that you & I been alive. Now they've drawn a conclusion that the Sun has no link to that change. The simple reason "these scientists" say it's man-made is because they cant tax the Sun - but they can definately tax you & I. It aint about the environment, this is about $$$ (and a lot of it!) Real environmentalists understand their movement has been hijacked by a bunch of corporatist, globalist Muh-Fukaz's. As this whole thing plays out, it is nothing more than a transfer of wealth, out of this country into the hands of a very few

A Scam to surpress human activity, globally!

Word games? Sir, words have meanings -- but not the ones you conveniently want to assign to them. You're right, stop the word games and quote the damn provision that makes the statement that YOU made.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

Re: C l i m a t e G a t e

This Climate treaty is going to give the industrialized nations complete control of the planet's resources. Trust all of this bullshit.

Hell, don't they already ? ? ?

QueEx

 

[Lamarr]

Re: C l i m a t e G a t e

Word games? Sir, words have meanings -- but not the ones you conveniently want to assign to them. You're right, stop the word games and quote the damn provision that makes the statement that YOU made.

QueEx

I just posted a misleading article describing how 'the Sun' has nothin to do with Climate Change. My response:

Now the Global Warming crowd is telling you 'the sun' aint got nothin to do with the weather.

Instead of weather, I should've said Climate Change. Be that as it may, Do you really believe............................"the Sun" has nothing to do with Climate Change?

 

[QueEx]

Re: C l i m a t e G a t e

I just posted a misleading article describing how 'the Sun' has nothin to do with Climate Change. My response:



Instead of weather, I should've said Climate Change. Be that as it may, Do you really believe............................"the Sun" has nothing to do with Climate Change?

I don't know whether the article was misleading; but, your comments totally misrepresented the article. The article, (rightfully or wrongfully), didn't say the sun has nothing to do with climate change.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

Re: C l i m a t e G a t e

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climategate-conclusions/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="">link</A>

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climategate-conclusions/</IFRAME>

 

[thoughtone]

Re: C l i m a t e G a t e

Financed by Exxon/Mobil and Koch industries.​

​

 

[Panameno718]

Re: C l i m a t e G a t e

 

[thoughtone]

...and the oil spill is a Gore power grab!

 

[thoughtone]

Re: C l i m a t e G a t e

'Climategate' Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal


Silence like a muthafucka.

 

[thoughtone]

bump

 

[Lamarr]

Re: C l i m a t e G a t e

M E L T D O W N of the Golbal Warming Consensus! ! ! ! !

If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists.

The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.

For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."

But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.

For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.

Then there's the IPCC's earlier prediction in 2007 -- which it claimed to have "high confidence" in -- that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.

Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.

Overall, the IAC slammed the IPCC for reporting "high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach 'high confidence' to the statements." The critics note "many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective or not expressed clearly.

Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, "Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges 'were not adequately considered,' the InterAcademy Council's investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report."

Yet the Himalayan claim wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data -- but on speculation in a phone interview by a single scientist.

Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, "[IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion's share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers."

Thus, the Times concluded, "EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus."

All this comes on top of last year's revelation of the "Climategate" e-mails, which revealed equally shoddy practices (and efforts to suppress criticism) by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia -- perhaps the single most important source of data that supposedly proved the most alarming claims of global warming.

Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that "the debate is over" -- that the science was "settled." That claim is now in shreds -- though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous "cap and trade" anti-warming bill.

What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who'll produce the "right" results.

The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers -- and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.

Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it's a travesty.

In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual scientists' reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science itself. For that, we will all suffer.

 

[thoughtone]

Re: C l i m a t e G a t e

M E L T D O W N of the Golbal Warming Consensus! ! ! ! !

But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies,"