U.S. EPA Joins The Global Warming Fraud/Cover Up

Consider the source. This is not science or journalism. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a paid lobby group for corporations that don't really want there to be global warming.

If you look at their self-published list of financial supporterswe see..
* Aequus Institute
* Amoco Foundation, Inc.
* Coca-Cola Company,
* E.L. Craig Foundation
* CSX Corporation
* Fieldstead and Co.
* FMC Foundation
* Ford Motor Company Fund
* Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation
* Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
* Pfizer Inc.
* Precision Valve Corporation
* Prince Foundation
* Sheldon Rose
* Texaco, Inc.
* Texaco Foundation
* Alex C. Walker Foundation

And from sourcewatch

In a 2006 profile of CEI and other global warming skeptics, Washington Post reporter Joel Achenbach noted that "the most generous sponsors" of CEI's 2005 annual dinner were "the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Exxon Mobil, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and Pfizer. Other contributors included General Motors, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Plastics Council, the Chlorine Chemistry Council and Arch Coal." [6]

Further, note this little gem Scientist to CEI: You Used My Research To "Confuse and Mislead"

The business-backed Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released two ads last week to "counter global warming alarmism." One of the ads says research shows "The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner. . . Why are they trying to scare us?" Actually, scientists say increased snowfall in Antarctica's interior is evidence that global warming is taking place. Scientists also say that the ice sheet is melting at the ocean's edge and a recent report says it is shrinking overall. The ads drew a protest from a University of Missouri professor who says they are "a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate." He said one of them misuses a study he published in Science magazine last year on the Antarctic ice sheet. An editor of Science also said the ads misrepresent the findings of that study as well as a second study on Greenland's glaciers. The second CEI ad notes that carbon dioxide (CO2) is "essential to life," and says, "they call it pollution. We call it life." That ad fails to mention that too much CO2 can cause global temperatures to rise or that there is more of it in the atmosphere than any time during the last 420,000 years. CEI, which gets just over 9 percent of its budget from Exxon Mobil Corporation, said it was only trying to make sure the public hears "both sides of the story."

Let's leave this group out of any scientific debate since they are not interested in the truth, only promoting their client's economic interests.

reply to post by metamagic

Let's leave this group out of any scientific debate since they are not interested in the truth, only promoting their client's economic interests.

Most groups promoting Anthropogenic Global Warming, are just as economically motivated. Governments see a new revenue source, traders see a new tradeable commodity that they can skim off of, and I'm pretty sure these "scientists" aren't self funding. I wonder if they would continue to receive grant money if one of their studies provided evidence contrary to the AGW scam.

I'm in agreement with the President's statement that even if you doubt the science, incentivizing efficiency and clean energy are good ideas though. Carbon limits and trading however is just another taxing scheme.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by jefwane]

[edit on 28-1-2010 by jefwane]

Originally posted by jefwane

Most groups promoting Anthropogenic Global Warming, are just as economically motivated. Governments see a new revenue source, traders see a new tradeable commodity that they can skim off of, and I'm pretty sure these "scientists" aren't self funding. I wonder if they would continue to receive grant money if one of their studies provided evidence contrary to the AGW scam.

Gave your post a star!

There are groups that promote global warming for economic reasons, I can think of a few right now, however the economic interests on both sides of the debate have to be carefully distinguished from the science that is going on. Some of us hold opinions that are not in line with either camp.

AGW as a hypothesis is not a scam. There are those who use AGW to scam people, just like obesity is not a scam but there are lot of people who use obesity to scam the public with phoney diet aids and weight reduction gizmos. The fact that there are diet scammers does not invalidate the premiss that there is an obesity problem.

Same with climate change. The data shows that something significant is happening -- not just meteorological evidence, but botanical, zoological and other fields' data do correlate this fact. What it is that is happening, we don't know exactly, but the data suggest several possible models and AGW is one of them. We also have to be clear that AGW may only be part of the issue, an exacerbating factor to an underlying natural problem or it may be totally unrelated. At this point though, the AGW data are getting more compelling.

I responded to the OP since they were using a known lobbyist who has a record of twisting and spinning science to their own economic ends. And I will also call out anyone who does the same on the other side. I particularly have a problem with those organizations that are pushing "green" policies, products and services that have no appreciable benefit to climate change or the environment.

Any science can be spun to support any political agenda, but it is important that we do not mistake this spin for the real science that is going on. It is also important to realize that in the scientific debate about global warming, the lack of consensus is exactly how good science should operate. The process of scientific debate and argument should find bad data, methodological errors, flawed models and use this to improve the science. This does not mean that the original science is a scam or that we just throw up our hands and cry "Debunked!"

Actually with your comment to scientists not being self-funding, one of the great failings the scientific community has had is the willingness of scientists to sell out to economic interests, but it tends to be more to corporate interests since they are the ones with the cash. Just look at the "bought" science in the past of the Tobacco companies and drug companies.

Good post my friend!


[edit on 28-1-2010 by metamagic]