[A-List] Global Warming: Exxon Money vs Scientific Evidence

[Bill Totten <shimogamo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Consumer Advocates Call on Congress to Subpoena Exxon's Funding Records 
As Oil Giant Underwrites Efforts to Deny Reality of Global Warming

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights

News Release (February 02 2007)

Santa Monica, California - The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR)
today called on Congress to subpoena ExxonMobil's records and probe the oil
giant's funding of organizations involved in disputing the reality of global
warming.

The nonpartisan, nonprofit foundation's call came as a widely respected
international report warned that climate change cannot be stopped and is 
"very likely" caused by human activity.

FTCR urged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 
to launch the investigation after a report in the respected British newspaper,
The Guardian, that the Exxon-financed American Enterprise Institute (AEI) was
offering scientists and economists $10,000 each to write articles undercutting
the report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses were also being offered.

The AEI has received more than $1.6 million from Exxon Mobil and more than
twenty of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration, which 
has resisted reports of global warming. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil,
is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees, The Guardian reported.

"ExxonMobil made a profit of $40 billion last year - more than any company ever
- not just on the on the backs of overcharged motorists, but at the expense of
human life on earth itself. Now it's using the profits to bury the evidence and
distract attention from the most serious problem the world faces", said John
Simpson, FTCR consumer advocate. "Profiteering is one thing, but willfully
undermining serious scientific research to maintain those profits simply 
cannot be allowed".

According to the Los Angeles Times the IPCC report released today in Paris 
says scientists' "best estimate" is that temperatures will rise 3.2 to 7.8
degrees [Fahrenheit] by 2100. In contrast, the increase from 1901 to 2005 was
1.2 degrees. The report also projects that sea levels could rise by 7 to 23
inches by the end of the century.


The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization. More information is available on the web at:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org.

(c) 2000-2006 FTCR. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/pr/?postId=7352


_____


Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

by Ian Sample, science correspondent

The Guardian (February 02 2007)


Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded
by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change
report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded
think tank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments 
for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as 
the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin
international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto
agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments 
were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil and more than twenty
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".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt 
over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate
attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political
aims", said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East
Anglia.

"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in
any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific
community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice", 
he said.

The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed
that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts
to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths
and weaknesses of the IPCC report.

"Right now, the whole debate is polarised", he said. "One group says that anyone
with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone
who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of
utility for intelligent policy".

One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could
easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if some of the other
authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that
it's not our fault", said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.

The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush
administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there 
is a ninety per cent chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that
global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8 degrees Celsius this
century, depending on emissions.

Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most
prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading
authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive
picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to
stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming
due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable
risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce
the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal
minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise".

Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a think tank, it
functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White
House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial.
They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've
got left is a suitcase full of cash."

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.

Guardian Unlimited (c) Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html


http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com
http://www.ashisuto.co.jp