Think Tank Offered $10,000 Fee For Climate Change Debunking
The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington, DC think-tank heavily financed by major US oil companies and other businesses, offered a $10,000 honorarium for publication of a climate change debunking report.
The AEI letter with the offer is here.
In a related development, tobacco companies have been funding anti-climate change materials.
Details collected here.
12 comments:
I have no problem with this group offering $10,000 for a paper debunking global warming, as long as this paper could stand up to independent scientific skepticism. If this would not happen then I have a problem with it. My whole issue with the pro-global warming crowd is that they have been unwilling to debate the skeptics. I would love to hear an independant debate by reputable scientsts on both sides of the issue. I do not care what Al Gore has to say. He offers no value, since he is profiting off of global warming with his bogus carbon offset program.
I am still unsure if global warming is being caused by humans, I still think the jury is out. But I do find it ironic how people on the left are emphatic on this issue are unwilling to listen to the other side and call others names and are condesending, just like Mr. Rowen was to Annon. on a seperate post.
I am an independent thinker and I want to hear both sides of the debate in the same form. When is that going to happen.
Hey - - I let the other anonymous poster have his say, and more. He began the dialogue by calling people with whom he disagreed "wackos," so who was condescending whom?
I agree that the term "wacko's" was wrong. But you have to admit that some of the pro-global warming people want mandates implemented that are absured. But there are "wackos" on the other side as well.
I like to consider myself middle of the road when it comes to the political spectum. I like some liberal ideas and conservative ideas. IMHO, the D's and R's are too far to the left and right, respectively. This is causing a major problem in our country. We need to take the middle ground.
As an average Joe, I am nervous to what global warming legislation will do to our lifestyles and our pocketbooks. I think we need to make sure that we are right on this before we as a county start making drastic changes. For example, I agree with increased CAFE standards, but only increases that are achievable. If CAFE standards are increased to high, consumer choice will be limited and people will be upset. Same goes for costs, if oil and electric power increase too fast people will be upset. I am affaid that any radical legislation will have a negative affect on people's lives. This will hurt the pro-global warming cause.
We need "common sense" legislation, that does not hurt the economy and maintains peoples lifestyles. If this does not happen the legislation will be doomed.
Again, I am not pro or against global warming, I just find it alarming how fanatical people on the pro-global warming side are, and are not willing to debate. This does not bode well for the undecided people like me.
James, it is not fair to compare global warming to the bridge collapse in Minn. Two seperate issues. Why do these things always have to be political. Global warming should be debated by scientists in a public manner, not by politicians, who cater to their special interests. Both parties cater to their special interests.
We nee
I think that industry got a pass on CAFE standards for decades. Much more was and is achievable. So the choices that you want people to have, and I want them, too, were supplied by non-Detroit firms, like Honda and Toyota, with hybrids and well-made smaller vehicles.
I think Industry can adapt when challenged. To date, they have generally gotten their way with legislation.
The MN collapse analogy was simply one of recognizing warning signs when they are staring us in the face. I said nothing political or partisan about it.
I agree with John P. on one point, that any paper debunking global warming should stand up to independent scientific skepticism. So far the vast majority of scientific peer reviewed publications support the concept that the globe is warming and that it is caused, to some degree, by humans. If there were gobs of evidence to counter that, there probably wouldn't be a $10,000 reward.
I agree that any paper that could actually stand up to scientific scrutiny and debunk global warming would not need to have a reward offered. Once it was published in a peer-reviewed journal the author would have to hire an assistant to cope with all the public appointments that industry would schedule for them.
The problem is that the science has been debated and hashed out, by scientists, in their labs and in the field, and the data that has been and is being collected supports global warming overwhelmingly. Too many industries have attempted to convince the public that any changes to combat global warming will mean a lower standard of living for Americans, and this is not the case. Indeed, our standard of living will be lower if we do nothing.
Botanists have found that "weedy" species such as poison ivy will benefit more from the increased heat and CO2 than more desirable plant species, such as crops.
Ragweed pollen counts will (and have been already) increasing, so all hay fever sufferers will have even more sneezing to deal with.
Droughts will become more common, including in important areas of cropland, meaning that food will be more expensive.
Snowpacks in the mountains that feed rivers used for drinking water will shrink, leading to water shortages.
Everything shipped in the Great Lakes will be more expensive because the cargo ships can't carry as much due to the lowered water levels. Hydro power will be more expensive and in some places uneconomical, which is a concern for Canada.
The United Nations predicts millions of environmental refugees because of the rising sea levels. For example, Vietnam may lose 12% of its land area. The people who live there now either have to go somewhere, or die.
There will be more fires as some forestry pests expand their ranges since the winters are no longer cold enough and long enough to kill them off, and the forests become drier.
Coastal cities will be inundated as the sea level rises, or they can invest in levees or seawalls to hold back the rising water. Not always a good option.
Cases of asthma will continue to increase.
The most frustrating thing about all of these consequences is that they are for the most part avoidable. Humans already have the technology--they lack the political and societal will to make the changes necessary to live a decent life on a planet with better than 6.5 billion people. The countries that might also be best positioned to cope with the changes are the developing nations right now, as they do not have a large investment in the infrastructure as the developed nations do. The US may very well find itself falling further behind as it remains with the tried-and-true even after new technologies are more appropriate to the changing climate.
Controlling global warming doesn't mean sitting in the dark unable to leave the house. It means recognizing that resources aren't unlimited, and our long-term health and welfare is tied to keeping the systems of the planet in good working order, just as a car will last a lot longer if it is maintained regularly instead of ignored until something breaks and requires a lot more money to fix than if it had been taken care of earlier.
Catherine:
I heard the same type of arguments back in the 70's when global cooling was the scare. I thought that there was a scientific agreement back then. Now it is global warming. The debate has not been settled.
Why does CAFE need to be increased anyway? If someone wants a fuel efficient automobile, there are many in the market place that gets over 30 MPG. Many people have a need for large SUV's and pickup trucks. Increases in CAFE are going to kill consumer choice for these vehicles, dont you think. You cannot tow a 12,000 horse trailer with a Toyota Highlander Hybrid.
You cannot tow a 12,000 horse trailer with a Toyota Highlander Hybrid.
Maybe when we run out of oil we'll get 12,000 horses to pull your trailer.
"Maybe when we run out of oil we'll get 12,000 horses to pull your trailer. "
It is stupid, ignorant and non practical comments like this, which I hear from the Pro-Global Warming fanatics which causes me to be skeptical about the true agenda from the Al Gore crowd.
I think there was a little levity in there.
To all the global warming alarmist, go to www.junkscience.com and try to win $100,000. Or to those of you who want to learn about the truth about global warming.
Post a Comment