ExxonMobil has been offering lots of money to any scientists who can come up with data showing that the increase in CO2 caused by human activity is not contributing to global warming.
how much is offer? who has received it? when did this start? how long is the offer good for?
of course, speculators need not apply, nor people who can answer only one question.
PLEASE remember, "HARD NUMBERS DON'T LIE"
2007-09-07T09:46:08Z
left wing blogs don't count anymore than right wing ones do. sorry.
2007-09-07T09:48:11Z
because it's a myth? or is it just worth 2 points to type all that?
again PLEASE READ! those that can not answer need not apply.
2007-09-07T10:13:53Z
it appears to me the Union of Concerned Scientists, a very left wing group, has made a "hit list" of all the right wing and libertarian groups it can smear.
EVERY single listed group claims right wing or libertarian leanings.
exxonmobil can't donate to right wing groups? and does the price vary according to loyalty? or are you trying to say that the issue is politically motivated, instead of science?
2007-09-07T10:49:21Z
thaanks for answeing all 4 questions johnny. the intellect you being to the table is amazing
2007-09-07T11:37:21Z
keith's second link shows a copy of the actual letter sent out by the AEI. in part, it states:
"The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change."
hardly a "scientist for hire" senario has everyone is implying.
2007-09-07T16:05:52Z
trevor- i see your a cut and paste man too.
this has been debunked. why don't you read the details i've posted?
Dr Jello2007-09-07T11:13:27Z
Favorite Answer
Just like Man Made Global Warming, the story that Exxon is funding scientist is a myth.
"NEWSWEEK implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability."
But this won't stop the religious zealots who soak in every story they perceive as true just because it fits with their preconceived notions that AGW is real.
Facts just don't get in the way of the faithful. Sure, they will find a website that supports their side, and they will stick to it because they believe everything that's on the internet is true.
The funny thing is that it's well documented that their side, like Dr. James Hansen takes money from political campaigns in exchange for endorsements, and is a paid consultant on movies. Here is someone who is profiting very well from his position.
I guess this bogus story about Exxon is just a distraction from their own profiteers.
HOW MUCH IS ON OFFER? $10,000 plus expenses and something termed "additional payments" although quite what this releates to isn't explained. The payments are per person per 'rebuttal'.
WHO HAS RECEIVED IT? No-one as far as I'm aware.
WHEN DID IT START? Approx January 2007 (going from memory so give or take a couple of months)
HOW LONG IS THE OFFER GOOD FOR? No 'closing date' was mentioned in the letter as far as I recall although I wasn't intending submitting an article or speaking at conference so I didn't take much notice.
It's not directly ExxonMobil that are offerering the payments but a subsiduary think tank - the American Enterprise Institute, largely funded by ExxonMobil and chaired by a former head of ExxonMobil. They are seeking climatologists and other releated specialists, primarily to refute the various IPCC reports.
I suspect the reason for the offer is that Exxon's in-house team of scientists were unable to come up with anything themselves, consequently the commission for them to discredit the science of global warming was withdrawn in approx 2003.
Exxon have denied involvement stating that they were unaware of the actions of the AEI
How do I know these things? Because I myself received a letter from Mr Green of the AEI asking me to participate. Can't remember his first name, I remember the surname as it struck me as ironic.
- - - - - - - - - - -
RE YOUR ADDED DETAILS
None of this answer is cut and pasted, the only time I cut and paste is from things I've already written or when I'm quoting someone, in which case I put it in speech marks.
I did read your details before answering the question and I am aware of the arguments to and fro regarding this issue, pretty much all of which is academic considering myself and others received letters asking us to write reports questioning the IPCC reports. No amount of back-pedalling or denying is going to make them disappear into thin air.
The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank funded by ExxonMobil, offered $10,000 plus expenses to scientists who would dispute the consensus view of IPCC's Fourth Assessment report, according a report by the Guardian, a leading British newspaper. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
AEI has taken issue with the tone of the news report, although they have also published the contents of the offer letter which confirms the essentials of the Guardian's article. http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25586,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
It is most interesting to note that, although AEI had planned to have their "policy critique" of IPCC's AR4 done by the time AR4 was released -- which was early 2007 -- no such critical assessment has actually appeared. It therefore seems likely that AEI found no takers on their offer.
The only source I have on this is: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
BUT
At their last plenary session, the enviro friendly shareholders of Exxon who do not deny what the executive board does expressed their strong disagreement
- The sum is 10,000 $ per article. It does not work as copy/paste as you have to be the source.
- The people who received the money are listed on the web site as well as the think tank,. You can trace this in the annual report of Exxon accounting. This is pretty well detailed. The Think tanks are then the one who have the dirty job to redistribute. This is a kind of "firewall" for Exxon in order not to be directly supporting them.
What I've always wondered is, if this actually causes an opposing argument to spring forth into existence out of thin air, how can it not make it's way into any scientific publication anywhere in the world? It should be front page news. After reading thousands of these Creationist (excuse me, skeptic/denier) posts, I haven't seen much in the way of sources except Wikipedia and websites run by people who are obviously certifiable. But I guess they wouldn't be skeptic/deniers if they were not.