Date: Sun Feb 4 21:39:57 2007

Author: Chuck Patten

Subject: Re: Money creates truth.

Post:
I suppose that the scientists on the panel who have come to that conclusion
were working without personal bias, and more importantly received less than
$10,000 in salaries each to come to their conclusions? Could we be losing
our objectivity a little?

Global warming has been occurring for more than 5,000 years. The Middle
East was once a very temperate place to live, long before the Christian and
Muslim eras. There is a lot of research money in the latest spin of what is
at the root of the problem. Blaming 'people' is a nice excuse because so
many 'researchers' will profit from it. Then there are ....... as nature balances things out. Give nature a
chance...

So $10,000 for a weeks work creating report detailing the weakness of their
report? Sign me up!

cheers,
chuck...


-----Original Message-----
From: tap-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu [mailto:tap-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu] On
Behalf Of Bernard Cleyet
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 9:23 AM
To: PHYS-L Maillist; Sharing resources for high school physics;
tap-l@lists.ncsu.edu
Subject: [tap-l] Money creates truth.


SCIENTISTS OFFERED CASH TO CHALLENGE CLIMATE REPORT

IAN SAMPLE, GUARDIAN, UK - 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 an
ExxonMobil-funded think tank with close links to the Bush administration,
offered the payments for articles that emphasize the shortcomings of a
report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The AEI has
received more than $1.6m from Exxon Mobil and more than 20 of its staff have
worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head
of Exxon Mobil, 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".

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

bc


Back