Much has been made of the $10,000 that the AEI is offering to review and critique the IPCC study. After all, Exxon accounted for just under 1% AEI’s funding last year: that means that Exxon, in effect, is offering just under $100 to review the report. This is huge news! It’s on CNN and made the front page of Digg.
But after reading the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report on Global Warming, something smelled amok.
Take this passage for example:
Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting climate sensitivity.
What’s this? Why should we look at the fact that more than 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour? Clearly, the only thing we should be looking at is that CO2 Levels went from 0.028% to 0.036% of the atmosphere in the last 100 years. If mankind accounted for all of that change, it means that we may have changed the total atmospheric makeup by up to 0.008% in the last 100 years! That’s almost 0.00008% per year!
Scientific translation = WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE! (curiously missing from the report)
And this quote:
Difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climate variability is relatively larger making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external forcings. Uncertainties in local forcings and feedbacks also make it difficult to estimate the contribution of greenhouse gas increases to observed small-scale temperature changes.
What’s this? The study basically says they don’t know? Blasphemy!
The study must have been corrupted . . . by Exxon.
Follow the money:
Exxon Mobil Corp paid $29.6 Billion in Income Tax last Year.
The USA FY2006 Federal Budget was about $2.6 Trillion and will have tax receipts of about $1.9 trillion.
$29.6B/$1.9T = 1.55%
While not perfect, we can estimate that Exxon Mobil accounts for about 1.55% of every federal dollar spent.
The United States Has Funded $14.5 Million of the $91.2 Million (about 16%) Raised By IPCC (Includes Franc to Dollar conversion of .8)
The IPCC spent about $4.9 Million in 2006
($4.9 Million) * (16%) * (1.55%) = $12,213
(2006 IPCC Spend) * (% US Contribution) * (% Exxon Mobil of US Tax Reciepts) = $12,213
Therefore, Exxon Mobil Corp funded about $12,213 of IPCC last year!
I smell corruption. How else can one explain these admissions in the study about “water vapour feedback”, “uncertainties”, and “difficulties”? The only solution is to immediately halt the US Federal Government (and thereby Exxon) from funding IPCC.
Sure, the name “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” inspires confidence that any studies will be unbiased and completely without prejudice. But with IPCC squarely in Exxon’s pocket – how can we be sure?
12 Responses to “Exxon Gives $12,213 to IPCC, Corrupts Study!”
Nice formulas. The basic one I use is:
Politics + Science = Political Science
(which we all know isn’t a science).
Q.E.D.
I still don’t know….why the car companies haven’t pushed harder for more environmentally friendly cars onto the public? Why isn’t there an alternative yet? Surely the oil companies can deploy some sort of hydrogen distribution network (or whatever alternative fuel they decide on)…
Haven’t the oil company CEOs seen Al Gore’s movie? I was scared shitless after the first hour!
Keemo
PS I love your blog Q! I always check on updates and am still looking through your past posts.
I have an issue with your math. Co2 levels increasing from 0.028% to 0.036% actually represents an increase of just under 29% in the last 100 years. The total percentage of Co2 in atmosphere is a tiny amount, but an increase of 29% is statistically significant. No comment on the rest of your article.
antionomy: I understand what you are saying. But if you say we changed CO2 Levels by 29%, won’t most laymen think that CO2 went from something like 5% to 34%?
wow that comment made you look pretty stupid
The Federal Funds Rate rate goes from 5.25% to 5.75%. How will 99% of people describe the increase?
a) The rate increased by 0.5%
b) The rate increased by 9.52%
I’m sure there are some socialists in a corner somewhere lamenting the fact that their carefully orchestrated publicity stunt happend to coincide to a time when most of the US is experiencing extremely cold weather.
You really can’t trust any scientific research because everyone gets paid by someone and there is an unconcious bias in reporting information. They should do double blind studies like they do in medicine where the people who collect the data are different from the people who analyze the data and no one knows who is funding the research.
I’ve seen charts, from NASA, that show an increase in ice caps, no rise in sea levels, and temperature increases from slight, to negative, to nothing. So I don’t buy the whole “day after tommorow” scenario.
As for Quad’s point with this thread. It just shows a double standard. Everyone gets in a tiff about Exxon funding such a small amount, but no one questions the motives of the multi-billion dollar evironment movement & the beauracrats, scientists, and lawyers it supports? Even the founder of Greenpeace says the modern environmental movement has been commandeered by political associations that use it as a disguise to push a socialist and anti-globalization agenda. Not my words, the words of the founder of Greenpeace.
I’ll still recycle and I’ll still conserve energy as best I can, but not because I buy the propoganda. It just makes fiscal sense to lessen oil consumption.
“Scientific translation = WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE! (curiously missing from the report)”
LMAO! I haven’t laughed so hard in a while 
OK, I will set everyone straight. On the way to work this morning I noticed it was warmer than yesterday… which doesn’t mean that where I live is warming up due to a seasonal change, but if fact it confirms global warming. I would like my $12k now.
For the people interested, the report is only the summary of Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis’, which is one of 3 of 2007’s IPPC volumes. And not the most important one, according to this article: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2819/ (A man-made morality tale. How the IPCC’s fairly sober summary of climate science has been spun to tell a story of Fate, Doom and human folly).
What a clueless post. What else can we find on this site - 9/11 was an inside job, moon landings were a hoax, evolution is wrong?
There’s certainly been lies and propaganda and all of it coming from the denial camp. ExxonMobil has spent tens of millions on funding ‘independent think tanks’ to spread disinformation about the scientific reality and massive global consensus of anthropogenic climate change.
Every national science academy of every industrialized country on the planet confirms the reality of AGW. It’s only on sideshow wingnut blogs, amongst science-free loons that there’s any ‘debate’ about it.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forty percent of people know that.