Documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle

[-Cp]

All you out there who have bought into the lies of Al Gore NEED to watch this - produced by British TV Channel 4 (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html)...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle

[loosecannon]

All you out there who have bought into the lies of Al Gore NEED to watch this



or not

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WUN20070318&articleId=5105


The Causes of Climate Change
Open Letter to Channel 4 Head of production of "The Global Warming Swindle."


by Prof Carl Wunsch

Global Research, March 18, 2007

Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road London N1 3QP

10 March 2007

Dear Mr. Green:

I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change---in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?

I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate-change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or "swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved.

I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming Swindle" is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.

Sincerely,

Carl Wunsch

Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

you really should have guessed that this was a hoax documentary from the start.

[Dilloduck]

or not

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WUN20070318&articleId=5105



you really should have guessed that this was a hoax documentary from the start.

Have you bought any carbon credits ?

[Sitarro]

or not

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WUN20070318&articleId=5105



you really should have guessed that this was a hoax documentary from the start.

This post is a joke, right? :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[loosecannon]

Have you bought any carbon credits ?

if you want to understand carbon credits, yes I can help. Just ask.
************

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39

Martin Durkin
In 1997 television producer Martin Durkin from the TV company Kugelblitz made a series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which targeted environmentalists, presenting them as 'the new enemy of science' and as comparable to the Nazis. They were responsible, the series argued, for the deprivation and death of millions in the Third World. (Crimes against Nature , The Revolution Has Been Televised )

Channel Four had to broadcast a prime-time apology after Against Nature drew the wrath of the Independent Television Commission which ruled, 'Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them... as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.' (See CHANNEL 4 SAVAGED BY TELEVISION WATCHDOG )

Having seen the programes in advance, the Guardian's Environment correspondent, John Vidal, sought to identify the perspective from which the programmes had been made, 'I only know of one broad group which consistently uses this sort of argument about "environmentalism''. The Far Right. In the US, the Wise Use Movement is linked to the militias and its members beat up environmentalists who they call ''commies''. In South America and Asia, corporations and landowners spend millions killing them and bribing or influencing politicians against their arguments. Against Nature appears to peddle their line, yet C4 either can't see it or approves.'

Vidal's conclusion was understandable as the series provided a platform for a whole string of contributors from the Far Right but those behind Against Nature were not the usual right wing suspects. Rather, as Guardian columnist George Monbiot noted, the critical links were to a network then centered on the magazine LM, formerly known as Living Marxism , the monthly review of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP).

Monbiot writes, 'The assistant producer of Against Nature, Eve Kaye, was one of the principal coordinators of the RCP/LM. The director, Martin Durkin, describes himself as a Marxist, denies any link with LM, but precisely follows its line in argument. The series starred Frank Furedi, previously known as Frank Richards, LM's regular columnist and most influential thinker, and John Gillott, LM's science correspondent, both billed as independent experts. Line by line, point by point, Against Nature followed the agenda laid down by LM: that greens are not radicals, but doom-mongering imperialists; that global warming is nothing to worry about; that "sustainable development" is a conspiracy against people; while germline gene therapy and human cloning will liberate humanity from nature.'

Durkin's hidden agenda and controversial methods did not stop Channel 4 from making further use of his services, as Private Eye noted in February 2000, 'What does Channel 4 do with programme makers condemned by the TV watchdog, the Independent Television Commission (ITC), for using underhand editing techniques? The answer is, er, hire them to make another programme... Despite the damning ITC judgement the programme was seen at Channel 4 as somthing of a triumph, and science programmes commissioning editor Sarah Ramsden recieved high praise. Now Durkin is back with TV company Kugelblitz to make another programme in defence of genetic modification for Channel 4's 'Equinox' series.'

'Modified Truth: The Rise and Fall of GM' was broadcast on March 20 2000. It presented GM food as perfectly safe and as much needed to feed the starving in the Third World. Dr. Tewolde Gebre Egziaber of Ethiopia was among multiple signatories from the Third World who complained in a joint letter following the programme that it was a propaganda vehicle that made use of the Third World's rural poverty to support the monopoly control and global use of genetically modified food production by transnational corporations and emotionally blackmail the UK public into using GM (Joint Letter).

Two scientists critical of genetic engineering who were invited to contribute to the programme, Dr Arpad Pusztai and Dr Mae-Wan Ho, both subsequently complained that they were misled about the content and were not given a chance to reply to attacks on their positions (Pusztai's comments). Dr Ho said , 'I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position.'

They are far from the only ones to complain about Durkin's methods. Contributors to a Durkin-directed Equinox programme about breast implants, which argued implants reduce the incidence of breast cancer, complained of the programme makers' deceptive tactics: 'In discussions with Martin Durkin's "Kugelblitz" crew as to the content of their proposed "science documentary" on silicone breast implants last year, we were totally and unequivocally misled as to the intent and content of that piece.' Durkin's proposal for the programme had earlier been rejected by the BBC because it 'ignored a powerful body of evidence contradicting his [Durkin's] claims'. A researcher hired to help Durkin make the Equinox programme resigned because, 'my research was being ignored. The published research had been construed to give an impression that's not the case. I don't know how that programme got passed.'



**********

Ya'll really ought to check out your stories before you end up advertising for self proclaimed Marxists and Communists.

[Dilloduck]

if you want to understand carbon credits, yes I can help. Just ask.
************

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39

Martin Durkin
In 1997 television producer Martin Durkin from the TV company Kugelblitz made a series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which targeted environmentalists, presenting them as 'the new enemy of science' and as comparable to the Nazis. They were responsible, the series argued, for the deprivation and death of millions in the Third World. (Crimes against Nature , The Revolution Has Been Televised )

Channel Four had to broadcast a prime-time apology after Against Nature drew the wrath of the Independent Television Commission which ruled, 'Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views. It was also found that the production company had misled them... as to the format, subject matter and purpose of these programs.' (See CHANNEL 4 SAVAGED BY TELEVISION WATCHDOG )

Having seen the programes in advance, the Guardian's Environment correspondent, John Vidal, sought to identify the perspective from which the programmes had been made, 'I only know of one broad group which consistently uses this sort of argument about "environmentalism''. The Far Right. In the US, the Wise Use Movement is linked to the militias and its members beat up environmentalists who they call ''commies''. In South America and Asia, corporations and landowners spend millions killing them and bribing or influencing politicians against their arguments. Against Nature appears to peddle their line, yet C4 either can't see it or approves.'

Vidal's conclusion was understandable as the series provided a platform for a whole string of contributors from the Far Right but those behind Against Nature were not the usual right wing suspects. Rather, as Guardian columnist George Monbiot noted, the critical links were to a network then centered on the magazine LM, formerly known as Living Marxism , the monthly review of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP).

Monbiot writes, 'The assistant producer of Against Nature, Eve Kaye, was one of the principal coordinators of the RCP/LM. The director, Martin Durkin, describes himself as a Marxist, denies any link with LM, but precisely follows its line in argument. The series starred Frank Furedi, previously known as Frank Richards, LM's regular columnist and most influential thinker, and John Gillott, LM's science correspondent, both billed as independent experts. Line by line, point by point, Against Nature followed the agenda laid down by LM: that greens are not radicals, but doom-mongering imperialists; that global warming is nothing to worry about; that "sustainable development" is a conspiracy against people; while germline gene therapy and human cloning will liberate humanity from nature.'

Durkin's hidden agenda and controversial methods did not stop Channel 4 from making further use of his services, as Private Eye noted in February 2000, 'What does Channel 4 do with programme makers condemned by the TV watchdog, the Independent Television Commission (ITC), for using underhand editing techniques? The answer is, er, hire them to make another programme... Despite the damning ITC judgement the programme was seen at Channel 4 as somthing of a triumph, and science programmes commissioning editor Sarah Ramsden recieved high praise. Now Durkin is back with TV company Kugelblitz to make another programme in defence of genetic modification for Channel 4's 'Equinox' series.'

'Modified Truth: The Rise and Fall of GM' was broadcast on March 20 2000. It presented GM food as perfectly safe and as much needed to feed the starving in the Third World. Dr. Tewolde Gebre Egziaber of Ethiopia was among multiple signatories from the Third World who complained in a joint letter following the programme that it was a propaganda vehicle that made use of the Third World's rural poverty to support the monopoly control and global use of genetically modified food production by transnational corporations and emotionally blackmail the UK public into using GM (Joint Letter).

Two scientists critical of genetic engineering who were invited to contribute to the programme, Dr Arpad Pusztai and Dr Mae-Wan Ho, both subsequently complained that they were misled about the content and were not given a chance to reply to attacks on their positions (Pusztai's comments). Dr Ho said , 'I feel completely betrayed and misled. They did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position.'

They are far from the only ones to complain about Durkin's methods. Contributors to a Durkin-directed Equinox programme about breast implants, which argued implants reduce the incidence of breast cancer, complained of the programme makers' deceptive tactics: 'In discussions with Martin Durkin's "Kugelblitz" crew as to the content of their proposed "science documentary" on silicone breast implants last year, we were totally and unequivocally misled as to the intent and content of that piece.' Durkin's proposal for the programme had earlier been rejected by the BBC because it 'ignored a powerful body of evidence contradicting his [Durkin's] claims'. A researcher hired to help Durkin make the Equinox programme resigned because, 'my research was being ignored. The published research had been construed to give an impression that's not the case. I don't know how that programme got passed.'



**********

Ya'll really ought to check out your stories before you end up advertising for self proclaimed Marxists and Communists.

How many carbon credits have you bought ?

[loosecannon]

How many carbon credits have you bought ?

Not many, in this state you can buy them. Or at least you used to be able to. But I actually have not seen those options on my electric bill in about 6 years.

If you want me to explain how they work I will be happy. And you will be surprised.

[Dilloduck]

Not many, in this state you can buy them. Or at least you used to be able to. But I actually have not seen those options on my electric bill in about 6 years.

If you want me to explain how they work I will be happy. And you will be surprised.

Have you used them all already or are they invested ?

[Dilloduck]

Have you used them all already or are they invested ?

More importantly, when will I be issued my emission allowance ?

[Hobbit]

Not many, in this state you can buy them. Or at least you used to be able to. But I actually have not seen those options on my electric bill in about 6 years.

If you want me to explain how they work I will be happy. And you will be surprised.

Actually, I've seen how these carbon scams work. I attend school at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Waste Management runs a landfill in Tontitown, a small Italian community of less than 500 that is very near Fayetteville and serves the entire Fayetteville/Springdale area. In 1999, WM became concerned that methane produced by the landfill was contaminating groundwater, so they designed a system where pipes would be drilled through the trash to the pockets of methane, which would then be channeled through a network of pipes and burned, converting it into harmless CO2 and H2O. In 2001, an Arkansas state official decided that he couldn't let this deed go uncredited, so he wrote a letter to Waste Management urging them to hurry up. The state legislature also issued a bill requiring them to limit methan, which they were already doing. This all concluded in late 2001, when the facility came online. TerraPass was started in the fall of 2004 by a college professor. When you buy carbon credits from TerraPass, some of the money is given to Waste Management to use for this methan project...which they're already doing. Waste Mangement has stated that they would be doing it anyway, and that the TerraPass money is just 'icing on the cake.' Knowing this, I fail to see how it, in any way, offsets pollution from any source. TerraPass didn't even know that the system would be there without their money until recently, but has not moved it to different projects.

Carbon offsets also go to pay farmers who were already using livestock manure as fuel before they arrived.

Even if they worked, it's just another way for the cultural elites to be hypocrites and claim they aren't by paying somebody else to do their hard work for them.

Oh, and as for a source, there's a nice Businessweek article on it.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_13/b4027057.htm?chan=search

[Dilloduck]

Actually, I've seen how these carbon scams work. I attend school at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Waste Management runs a landfill in Tontitown, a small Italian community of less than 500 that is very near Fayetteville and serves the entire Fayetteville/Springdale area. In 1999, WM became concerned that methane produced by the landfill was contaminating groundwater, so they designed a system where pipes would be drilled through the trash to the pockets of methane, which would then be channeled through a network of pipes and burned, converting it into harmless CO2 and H2O. In 2001, an Arkansas state official decided that he couldn't let this deed go uncredited, so he wrote a letter to Waste Management urging them to hurry up. The state legislature also issued a bill requiring them to limit methan, which they were already doing. This all concluded in late 2001, when the facility came online. TerraPass was started in the fall of 2004 by a college professor. When you buy carbon credits from TerraPass, some of the money is given to Waste Management to use for this methan project...which they're already doing. Waste Mangement has stated that they would be doing it anyway, and that the TerraPass money is just 'icing on the cake.' Knowing this, I fail to see how it, in any way, offsets pollution from any source. TerraPass didn't even know that the system would be there without their money until recently, but has not moved it to different projects.

Carbon offsets also go to pay farmers who were already using livestock manure as fuel before they arrived.

Even if they worked, it's just another way for the cultural elites to be hypocrites and claim they aren't by paying somebody else to do their hard work for them.

Oh, and as for a source, there's a nice Businessweek article on it.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_13/b4027057.htm?chan=search

According to a few sites I can pay between $50 and $100 bucks a year and feel good about myself again. :laugh2:

[loosecannon]

Actually, I've seen how these carbon scams work. Carbon offsets also go to pay farmers who were already using livestock manure as fuel before they arrived.

Even if they worked, it's just another way for the cultural elites to be hypocrites and claim they aren't by paying somebody else to do their hard work for them.



Oh but they ARE paying somebody else, thus the credit.

I agree, and point taken, that there are bogus examples.

But look at it from another POV.

What motivation is there to produce electricity from renewable and carbon neutral power sources?

Very little. Power companies structure billing so that only 20% of the price of power is for the generation of power.

The 80% balance is assigned to line loss, infrastructure costs and maintenance (the grid) and the costs to meter and bill.

The actual power is cheap. My power bill itemizes all of this.

Well that sets the stage to make it impossible for any other power source to add power to the grid because they pay so little for the actual electricity that you can't afford to produce it and supply it to the grid.

Where I live I pay 16 cents/KWH for power, but I have to negotiate with the power company to supply power to the grid. If I am lucky the power company will pay 3.5 cents per KWH for power i generate, and that is after I purchase all the equipment required to match the power companies power conditioning demands.

So carbon credits are a way to provide subsidies to power companies that are paid by the consumer of the power, that still help make it feasible to provide sustainable and carbon neutral energy.

If the power companies were not scamming, the credits wouldn't be necessary.

But the power companies resist green energy.

Customers pay for the power when it enters the grid.

It is perfectly real, perfectly valid and it works.

If landfills have a sufficient supply of energy potential to contribute then the "abuse at your local landfill" may actually motivate other landfills to get on board. And that is progress.

[Hobbit]

Why claim it makes you 'carbon neutral' though. It's elitist and wrong. I am a big believer in next-gen power sources, such as nuclear, including possible fusion power in the future. Fuel cell cars would be quite beneficial, as well. If I had some money to blow, I'd give some private money to research the fuels, but not so I could walk around and act all holier-than-thou in the midst of other people. Gore, on the other hand, uses a polluting fleet of SUVs, flies a private jet, owns multiple, LARGE homes, and owns a zinc mine that produces toxic waste, then throws some money at unproven, immeasurable, barely verifiable pet projects and claims that makes it all better.

In addition, why carbon-neutral? Why not reduce your effective emmissions into the negative, to make up for others? Why not also cut your personal polluting, which you KNOW works? I ride a bike to work (it's only half a mile. I could walk if I wanted), drive a car that gets 40+ mpg (and isn't a hybrid), tolerate more extreme temperatures in my house so I can turn down the AC and the heat, and many other things, and not just because they reduce pollution, but because they cost less money. If Gore was truly serious about what he preaches, he could get a more fuel efficient car, fly commercial, and reduce the size of his house, then use the money he saves to invest in alternative energy sources.

The environment needs to be preserved, but carbon credits are not the answer. They're simply a way for self-righteous elites to claim absolution.

[loosecannon]

Well gee isn't carbon neutral as good as you can possibly do while generating electricity?

[stephanie]

I love it how.....Al Bore the* politician* is the know all about climate in his movie.. So were all just suppose to bow down and take it in the shorts..........silently, and peacefully...

Yet all the scientist in the above documentary don't know what their talking about...

:poke:

[loosecannon]

I love it how.....Al Bore the* politician* is the know all about climate in his movie.. So were all just suppose to bow down and take it in the shorts..........silently, and peacefully...

Yet all the scientist in the above documentary don't know what their talking about...

:poke:

You are posting drunk aren't you?

[stephanie]

You are posting drunk aren't you?

Why do you ask?
You don't like to be faced with the truth...
So you belittle someone..

[Hobbit]

Well gee isn't carbon neutral as good as you can possibly do while generating electricity?

Certainly not. I went and looked at the TerraPass web site. If I bought into the carbon offsets nonsense, I could easily offset my own emmissions three times over, totaling up a negative output.

[loosecannon]

Why do you ask?
You don't like to be faced with the truth...
So you belittle someone..

no, your post was incoherent

[loosecannon]

Certainly not. I went and looked at the TerraPass web site. If I bought into the carbon offsets nonsense, I could easily offset my own emmissions three times over, totaling up a negative output.

well we must be using the same term in two entirely different ways.

"carbon neutral" is a scientific term which describes producing power or perhaps any number of activities which do not produce a by product of carbon waste (like CO2) in addition to that which is already present in the biosphere.

[Hobbit]

well we must be using the same term in two entirely different ways.

"carbon neutral" is a scientific term which describes producing power or perhaps any number of activities which do not produce a by product of carbon waste (like CO2) in addition to that which is already present in the biosphere.

Carbon neutral in its most common use (as used by Al Gore) means that one buys enough carbon credits to theoretically offset his own emmissions and no more.

[loosecannon]

Carbon neutral in its most common use (as used by Al Gore) means that one buys enough carbon credits to theoretically offset his own emmissions and no more.

OK, You are correct. In my lexicon that is a new use of the word. But it made the Oxford dictionary "word of the year" in 2006 defined the way you are using it.

[darin]

or not

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WUN20070318&articleId=5105



you really should have guessed that this was a hoax documentary from the start.

IF that is legit, that seriously doesn't explain every OTHER professional who commented. (shrug). You want people to believe in Global warming because you are anti-human.

[loosecannon]

IF that is legit, that seriously doesn't explain every OTHER professional who commented.

No, actually the links provided state several examples wherein Durgin basically lied in producing 3 different psuedo documentaries.

I don't have a horse in the global warming race. I couldn't care much less about it.

But I know that there is an industry in place to create fictional "science" to discredit the real science, just like there is an industry cooking up the false science of "intelligent design".

[Baron Von Esslingen]

No, actually the links provided state several examples wherein Durgin basically lied in producing 3 different psuedo documentaries.

I don't have a horse in the global warming race. I couldn't care much less about it.

But I know that there is an industry in place to create fictional "science" to discredit the real science, just like there is an industry cooking up the false science of "intelligent design".

Mother Jones exposed Exxon/Mobil for funding over 40 groups involved in trying to cloud the issue of global warming.


There is overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are causing global average temperatures to rise. Conservative think tanks are trying to undermine this conclusion with a disinformation campaign employing “reports” designed to look like a counterbalance to peer-reviewed studies, skeptic propaganda masquerading as journalism, and events like the AEI luncheon that Crichton addressed. The think tanks provide both intellectual cover for those who reject what the best science currently tells us, and ammunition for conservative policymakers like Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who calls global warming “a hoax.”

This concerted effort reflects the shared convictions of free-market, and thus antiregulatory, conservatives. But there’s another factor at play. In addition to being supported by like-minded individuals and ideologically sympathetic foundations, these groups are funded by ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company. Mother Jones has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of “skeptic” scientists who continue to do so. Beyond think tanks, the count also includes quasi-journalistic outlets like Tech CentralStation.com (a website providing “news, analysis, research, and commentary” that received $95,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003), a FoxNews.com columnist, and even religious and civil rights groups. In total, these organizations received more than $8 million between 2000 and 2003 (the last year for which records are available; all figures below are for that range unless otherwise noted). ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Lee Raymond serves as vice chairman of the board of trustees for the AEI, which received $960,000 in funding from ExxonMobil. The AEI-Brookings Institution Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, which officially hosted Crichton, received another $55,000. When asked about the event, the center’s executive director, Robert Hahn—who’s a fellow with the AEI—defended it, saying, “Climate science is a field in which reasonable experts can disagree.” (By contrast, on the day of the event, the Brookings Institution posted a scathing critique of Crichton’s book.)

link (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html)

[Hobbit]

Mother Jones exposed Exxon/Mobil for funding over 40 groups involved in trying to cloud the issue of global warming.



link (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html)

So, they must be horribly biased, while the studies whose government funding depends on them predicting the end of the world and the studies funded by Greenpeace, an anti-capitalist organization, and the studies funded by the U.N., an anti-American organization, are all completely unbiased and only tell the absolute truth. Yeah, right.