In case there was any doubt about what the benefits are that we derive from the tax breaks that were awarded to big oil, and the R&D that it was to spawn:

 

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

 

 

Frances

In case there was any doubt about what the benefits are that we derive from the tax breaks that were awarded to big oil, and the R&D that it was to spawn:

 

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

 

 

Frances

 

'Denial For Dollars' would have been a good headline for this story...

'Denial For Dollars' would have been a good headline for this story...

:laugh: :laugh: That's a good one!!!

This is one of the funniest things I have ever read on BGP.

 

"The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

 

. . . the Bush Administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. . ."

 

"Climate change denial"

 

Anyone unable to read between the lines here that the global warming community is leveling this attack about "agendas" in order to further their, well, agenda, has lost the forest for the trees.

 

It should not be a revelation that money is offered for politically-motivated research on both sides of this issue.

 

There is nothing INDEPENDENT about any of this stuff. Research is bought and paid for. Always. Period. Do not pass 'Go' Do Not Collect $200.

 

The message here is clear - if you challenge our findings, you are a Bush-lover, a Earth-hater, a baby-killer, and probably a racist, too.

 

And how we stretch this article into "tax breaks for big-oil and the R&D it has spawned" is really nebulous. To follow that line of reasoning, I guess Big Oil only started paying for politically motivated research in 2004 when the tax laws changed in their favor? But prior to 2004 they did not engage in such activities?? C'mon.

A story in The Guardian, a British newspaper, this morning reports that:

 

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.

 

American Enterprise Institute, an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank 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).

 

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".

 

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.

 

 

I guess that's the whole point here, isn't it?

 

 

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html#article_continue

What took you all so long to report this? And from a UK newspaper at that. MSNBC & CNN reported on this earlier this week.

A general reply:

 

If someone cannot see the link between the monies that our government has seen fit to bestow on the companies that make up the oil industry (e.g. Exxon, Chevron, etc.) and the money that is then put into denouncing research into global warming, then I would submit that that individual does not want to see the reality of where our governments loyalties lie.

 

This is a simple case of "follow the money".

1) We pay taxes to our government.

2) Our government decides on how to spend this money - in this instance, they give the oil companies a tax break, ostensibly, to further their R&D efforts (need I mention the record setting profits that these companies are reaping?).

3) The oil companies offer money to anyone that will help debunk the data that shows that their product is negatively impacting the environment.

 

Now, I personally have no problem with them paying what is effectively a "bounty" to someone that will refute the data that will cast them and their product in a bad light. As Hearsay has said, it happens every day.

 

On the other hand, I take great affront that our tax money is being used to subsidize this sham - especially during times of record profits for these people.

 

Lastly, if anyone cannot see that there is a link between some of the key members of this administration and the oil industry, then there is probably no sense in discussing the issue any further with that person.

 

 

Frances

What took you all so long to report this? And from a UK newspaper at that. MSNBC & CNN reported on this earlier this week.

 

I just saw it today.

I just saw it today.

Both you and Frances picked this up from the Guardian. Do you two actually read The Guardian? Just curious.

 

I think its disgraceful if the government was pressuring scientists to alter there findings. While I may not agree with manmade global climate change, financial influnece or diress from either side of the issue is unethical and only serves to cloud and confuse the issue and the information gathered.

Both you and Frances picked this up from the Guardian. Do you two actually read The Guardian? Just curious.

 

I think its disgraceful if the government was pressuring scientists to alter there findings. While I may not agree with manmade global climate change, financial influnece or diress from either side of the issue is unethical and only serves to cloud and confuse the issue and the information gathered.

 

I don't necessarily read The Guardian. In this instance, I found the article as a result of it being mentioned on another site. It sparked my interest, so I decided to follow the link and read the story. Like H, I hadn't seen the story earlier in the week, else I would have started the thread earlier.

 

Like HHSDad, I have a severe problem with our government pressuring scientists to alter there findings.

 

I have seen several people on this site state that they would like to see a study done that is unbiased, and could give us a clearer picture of global warming. I'm all for that, but this story makes it clear that our government is actively doing everything it can to distort the findings that are available - and from what is considered to be an unbiased source.

 

 

Frances

 

It should not be a revelation that money is offered for politically-motivated research on both sides of this issue.

 

There is nothing INDEPENDENT about any of this stuff. Research is bought and paid for. Always. Period. Do not pass 'Go' Do Not Collect $200.

 

 

 

You're painting with an awfully broad brush here. You're making the assertion that all scientific research is performed with an agenda in mind and secretly bought and paid for by entities with a financial stake in the findings. Have all of the scientific research findings from all of the disparate technical disciplines that have reported consistent evidence of global warming and correlation to atmospheric CO2 levels been covertly commissioned and paid for by some secret society of treehuggers? Could such a group possibly outspend the fantastically profitable oil giants or even keep their massive research-for-pay undertakings so well concealed from public scrutiny? One of the cornerstones of scientific research and publishing is the peer-review process. Heck, they can't all be on the payroll.

 

I don't buy into the notion that the thundering chorus of scientists from dozens of different scientific disciplines who are finding evidence of manmade global warming are all being paid to report findings in some orchestrated scheme. On the other hand, those with a financial interest in preventing caps on carbon emissions have realized they only need to sow a few seeds of uncertainty to cast doubt on the peer-reviewed conclusions of thousands of independent scientists.

 

What other conspiracy theories do you subscribe to?

Both you and Frances picked this up from the Guardian. Do you two actually read The Guardian? Just curious.

 

I don't read the Guardian. I noticed this article on a news summary that is compiled by the company I work for.

I wonder why I didn't start a thread earlier in the week? :sssh:

I wonder why I didn't start a thread earlier in the week? :sssh:

 

LOL - good question...

 

 

Frances

Can someone point out the reason of the title of the thread when the article says......

 

 

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.