Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Separate Entry: Style, Ease of Reading, and NPOV...

Perhaps, it was mentioned/discussed above, but I didn't see it.

I'm thinking about creating a new Wikipedia entry, perhaps titled: "An Inconvenient Truth - Controversies, Factual Errors and Criticisms" or "UK Judgment's Opinions of An Inconvenient Truth" and moving those sections there.

I think its valid to list the issues within the movie, but this article seems too long to me. It gives these nine (9) errors or overstatements more weight textually than the hundreds (600 or so) factual/directional accurate statements and awards. And I think that giving a single UK Judgment all this space and weight in the original article, well, detracts, from the point of the whole thing. Sure there are many points of view and few of them neutral, but why give this one so much space here? If you want so much space, why not move it to its own article "UK Judgment's Opinions of An Inconvenient Truth"

Even with its faults, the movie, is helping to make people aware of Climate Change as an Issue. To say that the movie has errors in it, while accurate, is trying to distract from the main point of this article. The movie (errors and all) is successfully moving people to action to advert a crisis that could affect world peace in the future.

So why not list them in a separate wikipedia entry?

Looks like we should discuss it a bit...

Separate Entry? or Leave it as is?

- BMcCJ 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested doing this, I will try and make a start tomorrow but feel free to have a go yourself then I will add to it. Einztein 18:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is too small a subject matter to create a separate article. This would be a pov fork I think.--Blue Tie 17:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you are talking about a separate article regarding the trial. I also think that is too trivial but I would not see it as a fork. --Blue Tie 17:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Movies and Accuracies....

I'm just sitting here wondering what other movie has had so much energy put into scouring it for inaccuracies versus the overarching message.

So I looked at the entry for the previous documentary winner: "March of the Penguins". It too has controversy and debate. Are penguins really monogamous, do they kidnap other penguin chicks, should we see penguins as a metaphor for human family values?

But, in the end, it was a good movie and made us aware of issues both with the penguins, in their environment and within ourselves. I think the same is true with AIT... there are those that want to deny global warming and focus on the films errors, but, do these issues really detract from the overall message?

I think a separate entry would allow debate of the films scientific points there or under the catchall Global Warming Controversy. - BMcCJ 19:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. But imagine a film documentary that highlighted the good that Catholic charities did and the underlying role of the church in those charities. Then imagine that the church provided the film free to public schools and it became part of the curricula complete with guidance notes. Any problem with that? I would have a problem with it and it's the same problem I have with AIT and it is what makes it controversial. --DHeyward 03:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are comparing apples and tomatoes. The overarching point, as made by the movie and the Nobel award committee, is that without either reversing our carbon output or preparing for more climate catastrophes or refugees (read Hurricane Katrina) we will bequeath to our children and grandchildren a global disaster affecting as many as 300 million people. Doesn't really matter who the messenger is or if a few data points are in dispute, I want to work to avoid the problem, versus shooting the message or the messenger. More energy needed on Climate Change Solutions - BMcCJ 04:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You're mention of Hurricane Katrina and millions of global warming refugees is not born out by the facts as we know them today. YOu might as well point to video about the apocalypse and biblical plagues. It's the same thing. Global Warming science should be taught in schools. The fear mongering and politics should be left out. --DHeyward 20:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling the issue fear mongering is more misleading than what Gore said. Discussions are ocurring at the governmental level on where Pacific Islanders can go as sea levels rise. .203.214.56.96 21:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tuvalo (sp?) is the only island that I'm aware of that has discussed this. It is not a very high priority for the government of Tuvalo. It's fearmongering to make it seem as if it is. We have plans and discussions for asteroid collisions too but it's very unlikely to happen. It would be very irresponsible to present dire predictions of the earths imminent demise due to asteroids along with actual science on asteroids to school children especially if the solutions were politically charged (i.e. diverting billions of dollars in food aid to develop anti-asteroid space weapon or diverting actual food such as corn to make ethanol). --DHeyward 04:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't talking about whether or not school children should receive the movie. That seems clear as your POV agenda. And this wiki article shouldn't be the place to decide or debate it. Neither should this talk page. As to fear mongering, we are experiencing fatalities around the globe due to our change in climate and warmer atmosphere. Its factual. And the IPCC, continues to underestimate the concern see: IPCC#History_and_studies_suggesting_a_conservative_bias. We, as a planet, have seen climate refugees in the US, 100s of thousands, still affected and relocated following Huricaine Katrina and similar storms. The EU, US, India have had 1000s die from record breaking heat, storms, record rains and flooding. New Orleans was not prepared and YES we would have spent less preparing than in cleaning up. You could argue that there are more important global concerns, and have debates about funding and priority, or how to educate and foster positive action, but this article isn't the place. 'Nuf said. - BMcCJ 08:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oscar Correction

It has been erroneously stated by many members of the press that Al Gore himself won the Academy Award, but he in fact did not, Davis Guggenheim was the nominee and recipient of the Oscar. Al Gore did get a chance to make a speech at the Oscar's, but the statuette is not his. 70.224.63.12 00:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are not responsible for what "many members of the press" state. This article gets it right. --Stephan Schulz 00:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Gores response

VB removed [1] Gores response, correctly spotting that it wasn't. So... has he? William M. Connolley 12:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Kalee Kreider has given his response: "The ruling upheld fundamental pieces of the film and the scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused by human activities," she told The Associated Press. "Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up." (They do?) Vinny Burgoo 14:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I don't think they have, but other sensible people disagree William M. Connolley 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

High Court again

The second sentence of the second para of the UK High Court section is misleading. The judge's ruling said that AIT "did not amount to political indoctrination" only in that it said that no film could itself amount to political indoctrination - it was all a matter of how films (and other teaching materials) were presented in class. And he was unambiguous about whether the manner of the original, pre-hearing presentation of AIT could have resulted in political indoctrination. Para 45: "I am satisfied that ... there would have been a breach of ss406 and 407 of the Act but for the bringing of these proceedings and the conclusion that has now eventuated." The eventuated conclusion was the hammering out during the hearing of an amended guidance note for teachers. Without this amended guidance note, the film could not be shown in schools. Which is why the judge awarded the claimant two-thirds of his costs.

It is also misleading to say that the ruling "support[ed] the Government's decision to issue the DVD". Again, the law has no business supporting or rejecting such decisions. The judge ruled that it was the manner of the issuance that was in question - and his ruling was not supportive of the manner in which the Government originally chose to issue the DVD. Indeed it was critical of it.

I reckon the most important points about this ruling are (a) that all parties in court agreed that it was a political film, (b) that the judge ruled that the initial package had not adequately taken account of this politicality, (c) that the judge, acting on expert advice, found nine ways in which Gore's presentation diverged from the IPCC consensus and (d) that the film may be shown in schools as long as teachers are instructed in how to deal with the political bias and the bogusnon-standard science in the film (the amended guidance note takes care of this). It should be possible to say that fairly succintly. (The article, like this comment, is getting very long.)

I also reckon that the various responses to the film mentioned in the article should be arranged in a more rational way - for example, all "Education" responses, including the High Court ruling, should be lumped together.

And another thing ... The opening para. "Global warming skeptics have criticized the film, calling it 'exaggerated and erroneous'[7,8]" implies that only GWSs have criticized the film. Is that true? Even in the supplied references, you have Hansen saying that AIT has "imperfections" and "techical flaws". And what about Judge "Nine Errors" Burton? Vinny Burgoo 14:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont think that the nine errors are as important as the amendments required to the notice because of the partisan/political aspects so that the movie can be shown to students. That is the ratio decidendi. --Childhood's End 15:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. (But I think your re-write is too long.) Vinny Burgoo 16:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps, but it's still shorter than the previous one... --Childhood's End 18:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount that can be said about the court case, I think we definitely need a spinoff article on it. I'll use the relevant text from this article as a basic framework as a starting point. -- ChrisO 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good. That'll mean that the reference to the HC ruling can be as brief as this: "In 2007, a judicial review of the British government's distribution of DVDs of An Inconvenient Truth to English secondary schools ruled that the film could be shown in schools only if teachers were instructed to treat it as material that was politically partisan and scientifically questionable." With enough references, that should cover everything. (Not entirely serious. The treatment perhaps needs to be slightly longer than that.) And another thing ... Chris, I'm going to change your "stated" back to "claimed". Thousands of facts? Define fact. I confess that I haven't seen the film (or any of the lectures). All's I know is that, according to the amended guidance note, Gore's spokesman's "handful" of judicially denied facts take up a third of the film (and I've read that another quarter is taken up by biographical stuff): a quote that contrasts such a "handful" with "thousands" is a claim, not a statement. And what about these studies that allegedly "back these pieces up"? Until Gore's team produces them, that too is a claim, not a statement. Vinny Burgoo 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be careful before cutting the reference to the HC ruling further. First, there's one side which will complain that the relevant parts of the judgement that are favourable to their view no longer appear herein, and second, we might miss a few necessary elements to understanding what the controversy was about and how/why it was ruled by the Court. --Childhood's End 20:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Claimed" is a word that we're generally enjoined to avoid. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Claim and other synonyms for say. -- ChrisO 20:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Then please see the movie - the 9 'errors' comprise (even optimistically counting) a total of 6:10. (realistically though <3min). And most of these are 'errors' "by omission" of stating more. (i've just watched it again - and jotted down the times). [for instance the Kilimanjaro section is 22 seconds long. (00:16:46-0:17:08)] --Kim D. Petersen 20:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I might even buy my own copy on DVD. Vinny Burgoo 13:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Spinoff article - comments requested

The new article on the recent UK court case is now available at Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills. Please see Talk:Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills for my comments on specific areas that need to be expanded.

There are a few inaccuracies in the related section in this article - I suggest that the section should be rewritten to reflect the new spinoff article. -- ChrisO 23:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section to make it consistent with the new article on the court case. -- ChrisO 21:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I like what you've done with the section. It's short, sweet, to the point, and pretty unbiased. I'll go check out the new article on the actual court case in a little bit and let you know what I think there. Elhector 22:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of ExxonMobil as a Funding Source of SEPP

The following was added to the section on The Great Global Warming Swindle:

"President of the ExxonMobil supported Science and Environmental Policy Project"

The the way back machine reference citing a record from ExxonMobil's website seems to be an acceptable reference. That reference does not show the date(s) of the contributions but the second reference, from a Greenpeace website, does. These are from 1998 and 2000, supposedly, but the Greenpeace site does not provide a credible source for these allegations.

I object to this current addition because it leaves the reader with the misleading impression that ExxonMobil was a major source of SEPP's funding which cannot (easily) be validated since SEPP claims to not reveal their funding sources. But even if we accept that SEPP did, in fact, accept something on the order to $10,000 in each of 1998 and 2000 it is unlikely that these are the sole sources of funds, or even a significant proportion of the funds, provided by SEPP's funding sources.

I also object because the reader is left with the implication that ExxonMobil is only funding climate skeptics when in fact they provide far more funding to worthy environmental causes every year.

I am going to remove the above text from the article. If the community feels that it is critical that we call out this source of funding then we can still mention the relationship but I will want to do so in a way that is not misleading regarding my objections above. --GoRight 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably fair William M. Connolley 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this to where it belongs. --GoRight 20:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, why is Singer quoted at all? For example, in his op-ed cited here the statement "the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2" is patent nonsense. (No, it's not open to argument or interpretation -- this is flat-earth, moon-made-of-green-cheese wrongness.) Raymond Arritt 20:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)\

I didn't introduce the text for The Great Global Warming Swindle, in this article but it does seem to be appropriate to include this reference as valid criticism of AIT. Fred Singer is a legitimate climate scientist with legitimate credentials. The physics regarding the solubility of CO2 in sea water is well understood. His statement is merely a reflection of that relationship as well as the documented lag of 800-1000 years between observed warming and CO2 rises in the ice core data. --GoRight 17:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Singer isn't a clim scientist, but that doesn't necessarily matter. However, there is no obvious reason to include a quote from him, when there are no quotes from those opposing TGGWS William M. Connolley 20:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Side question

Why is "the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2" patent nonsense? I understand that sea surface warming would tend to absorb CO2 but it also seems reasonable that warming of the ocean floor would take carbonate from the solid form and put it in solution. I have no data or anything to suggest it happens, but chemically it seems plausible. Dissolved CO2 that reaches a certain depth I believe becomes a precipitate and goes to the ocean floor. This process is often touted as a mitigation to excess CO2 so I'm not sure why it's reversal due to warming temperature and reduced ocean density would be patent nonsense. If the ocean floor had enough carbonate, I suspect that the carbonate in the ocean and the atmosphere would rise as the temperature rose. It's a thought experiment though. --DHeyward 21:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. We know where the atmos CO2 is coming from. Warming SST would lead to less CO2 in the ocean. And most of the warming is at the sfc, so there is little warming of the ocean floor William M. Connolley 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It does seem intuitively plausible until you actually look at data. That the oceans are acting as a sink of atmospheric CO2 is confirmed by ocean chemical measurements (e.g., oceans are becoming more acidic, meaning they're gaining CO2), isotopic trends in atmospheric carbon, and other lines of evidence. To say that the oceans are currently a source of CO2 you'd have to dream up some new data and discard everything we know. Raymond Arritt 21:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Think of this thought experiment: saturate a glass of water with bicarbonate until it precipates to the bottom (this isn't an ocean so I can't create pressure gradiant precipitates). If you then heat the glass of water, the water will gain carbonate from the source of the precipitates and pH will drop. This would also be a source of carbon for atmosphere as the equilibrium at the interface would change. It all depends on how much carbonate is available from the solid. There are 1,000 Gt of carbonate on the ocean floor. WC says that warming SST means less CO2 in the Ocean and RA says that warming means it's gaining CO2. I thought it was gaining CO2. --DHeyward 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Warming SST, with no other changes, outgasses CO2 (ie, your "I understand..." is wrong). Warming SST whilst increasing atmospheric CO2 is a balance; as it happens, the oceans are indeed gaining CO2 from the atmos and becoming more acidic, as RA says William M. Connolley 22:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Aah, I understand now. Thanks. Couple more questions if someone wants to humor me.

I found some more articles on the ocean chemistry and it's still not clear to me how quickly dead and dying sea creatures go from the bottom of the ocean and back through the carbon cycle and what percentage of their carbon actually makes it to the bottom. Is there any definitive studies on deep ocean carbon or is this still a largely unknown field of study?

Do oceans covered in arctic ice sink as much CO2 as arctic open water (or another way to ask it is are under ice oceans as saturated with dissolved CO2 as much as arctic open water)? --DHeyward 04:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a quick question along these lines too. Methane is a greenhouse gas, right? Doesn't the Bermuda Triangle area belch methane into the atmosphere from the ocean floor? I thought I had seen on a documentary somewhere that this may be a cause of the issues airplanes and boats have with traversing that area in that it changes the atmosphere a little in that area and could possible screw with instruments on the planes and boats and also stall engines. Isn't it possible there are other areas in the ocean that belch up gases into the atmosphere. I'm just asking a general question because I'm curious. I'm not an atmospheric or oceanic scientist :-). Elhector 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There are certainly places where methane seeps out from the sea bed (see Cold seep) but I don't know how widespread such phenomena are. As far as I know, most methane on the sea floor ends up "frozen" in the form of methane clathrates. It's been suggested that methane clathrates may suddenly become unstable and outgas under certain circumstances; see Clathrate gun hypothesis. -- ChrisO 23:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

New court case?

I understand that Viscount Monckton is intending to, or is already financing the distribution to UK schools of a Great Global Warming Swindle and his upcoming film financed by the Science and Public Policy Institute, "Apocalypse No". As these films represent a minority opinion in the scientific field I consider the showing of these films in schools unacceptable. What do people think about launching a similar court case to prevent the showing of these films in schools? Einztein 19:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for such a discussion (do you have £200K to fund a court case, anyway?) but I'd say that the most appropriate response would be to write to the Schools Minister. The contact details are at [2]. -- ChrisO 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

BBC Feedback

Readers of this page may be interested to listen to the latest edition of Feedback on BBC Radio 4, originally transmitted on October 19 (availiable to listen till October 26). http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/feedback

Roger Harrabin admits that the BBC may have given a misleading impression of the judgement in the first reports. He also defended (weakly, IMO) the fact he did not mention that the Scientific Alliance was intimately connected to The New Party (UK) when its representative Martin Livermore was brought on to criticise Al Gore's film. Harrabin bizarrely also seems to attempt to slur Gore by claiming that he shouted at Harrabin after an interview, but strangely Harrabin had "lost the tape". Einztein 21:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was interesting. Is there any evidence of Gore taking hostile questions well? William M. Connolley 21:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if the incident did happen, the question is what relevance did this incident have to the court case or the way that Harrabin had reported it? None IMO. I think Harrabin was trying to paint Gore as an untrustworthy figure to make his own presentation which was pandering too far to the minority sceptics seem "neutral". Totally disgraceful. Einztein 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually if his testimony before US Congress is any indication, Al Gore avoids the hard questions like the plague. He doesn't even bother to show up if he anticipates hard questions. --GoRight 20:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

All roads lead to Exxon

What a surprise. The group with which Viscount Monckton (the backer of Dimmock and author of The New Party (UK)'s manifesto) is currently affiliated, the Science and Public Policy Institute is in fact an off shoot of the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation, "a conservative group that maintains that human activities are not responsible for global warming" which "received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002". http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E1D91131F93BA15756C0A9659C8B63

Einztein 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Stanford discredited because of the $10 million grants they receive? --DHeyward 04:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the difference would be that Stanford's products aren't implicated in the problem, unless you count academic hot air... -- ChrisO 08:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that funding worked the other way round (i.e. Exxon funded Stanford). But this is an obvious ruse. If you want to promote a fringe view, just sponsor both legitimate work and work supporting the fringe. You will appear neutral, but you artificially prop up the fringe (not to a majority view, but to d degree that might allow you to claim "no consensus"). And, of course, Exxon may well have legitimate interest in good research as well. No good research is likely to come out of the Frontiers of Freedom Foundation (although some interesting studies might be made about them). --Stephan Schulz 08:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The other think tanks products are not affiliated with the problem either. I was pointing out that this is logical fallacy that support by Exxon is discrediting. The IPCC and AIC have blurred the lines between politics and science. It is very hard to separate out policy support and support for science but it really has to be done to treat organizations neutrally. --DHeyward 14:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Has Exxon funded any groups who lobby on the position that global warming is due to human activity? Einztein 14:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Which organizations are lobbyists for the position that global warming is due to human activity? --DHeyward 16:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And why exactly does that matter? The IPCC view has had billions in funding poured into it and at this point there is an entire industry with a vested interest in protecting those funding streams. As a result there is a concerted effort to silence anyone who holds a contrary perspective or who challenges the IPCC view. This is evident from your statement above, is it not? Is the IPCC view so fragile that it is seriously threatened by such a modest investment in opposing research? --GoRight 21:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it matters incredibly. The oil companies and heavy industry are being quite deliberately dishonest as the know the truth about climate change, but they are just trying to spin things so it won't hurt their profits. They have a lot of money so they can hire experienced PR men and filmmakers to put doubt in many people's mind about global warming and they have succeeded in many cases with such films as The Great Global Warming Swindle. It is really crazy to suggest that somehow climate scientists since the 1970s have been being secretly funded by solar panel and wind turbine companies that probably didn't even exist at that time. Einztein 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"It is really crazy to suggest that somehow climate scientists since the 1970s have been being secretly funded by solar panel and wind turbine companies that probably didn't even exist at that time." This is not what I am claiming. What I am claiming is that the scientific community has created a situation where their funding streams to support on-going climate research is significantly enhanced by their current AGW positions. Regardless of where the money is coming from, be it industry or government sources, those people working in these fields have a vested interest in continuing to promote climate change as a catastrophic event simply because doing so will serve to pad their pockets with future grants. --GoRight 21:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No that is what you are arguing- you said "What I am claiming is that the scientific community has created a situation where their funding streams to support on-going climate research " - they have been talking about man made climate change since at least the 1970s. For what you are saying to be true the conspiracy must have started back then. They must have just invented man made climate change in the 1970s as a conspiracy to attack oil companies so they could cover the world in wind turbines and solar panels... Einztein 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a novel idea. Why don't we debate the science on its merits rather than complaining about who funded it? You know, I am sure, that the validity of the scientific results does not depend who paid for it, correct? --GoRight 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that the people that fund groups that lobby on the side of global warming being human caused also have a financial interest? Arguing about who's funding what studies is useless. The same argument can be made both ways. Just as many people stand to profit big time from pushing the view that it is human caused as there from people standing to profit from pushing the opposite view. The whole issues is political and industry backed on both sides. That's why so many people are skeptical. I doubt any good science comes out of either side at this point. Neither side is to be trusted. Elhector 18:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. That's why one side has the overwhelming support of the scientific community, and the other side has some unreviewed white papers produced by well-known conservative think tanks. How do you suppose the "pro-AGW" conspiracy manages to undermine the scientific integrity of the US National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the Academia Nazionale dei Lincei, the Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, and many other national academies, all of which have formally supported the IPCC position, NASA, NOAA, the Universites of Oxford, Chicago, Potsdam, Bern, Kiel, Tokyo, Arizona, Penn State, Iowa State, Ohio State, ETH Zurich, Stony Brook, Yale (to name a few), all of which happily employ IPCC contributors in senior positions, and the editorial staff of e.g. Science (journal), Nature (journal), and Cambridge University Press, which publishes these junk-science reports? --Stephan Schulz 18:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the groups you reference above have the most to loose if AGW were disproved as meaningless. As such they are the most likely to be biased if we want to look at the total money influence on the debate. The amount of money being channeled into these groups far exceeds the money Exxon channels into the climate skeptic groups. If you are truly worried that money is corrupting the science you would do well to consider the impact that reduced climate study grants would have on the AGW "scientific community" at this point. They have a vested interest in keeping their climate funding streams alive and well, and those streams are far larger than anything the skeptics are getting from Exxon. --GoRight 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Isn't it possible that the people that fund groups that lobby on the side of global warming being human caused also have a financial interest"- right so that would be the ultra powerful solar power or wind power lobby, except there isn't one. You don't have to be Einztein to see the problem here, oil companies and heavy industry don't want "green" taxes on their business and they don't want people to stop using their products by having the knowledge that they are contributing to climate change. It's entirely selfish. Einztein 19:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is tons of money in green companys. Take these carbon credit companies. I believe Al Gore is on the board for one of them. He buys credits from this firm to justify his energy comsumption. They stand to make lots and lots of money if enough studies come out telling people they need to be "carbon neutral". Plus there is tons and tons of grant money available to research firms and colleges if they complete studies that show global warming is human caused. Trust me the eco friendly industry is just as big and has just as much profit potential as oil companies due. GE is a prime example, they make tons of money off of wind powered generators and hydro electric generators for dams. Everyone is so quick do demonize the oil companies when I think companies that claim be eco friendly and sell "green products" and carbon credits are guilty of the exact same profiteering as big oil. Not that profits are a bad thing, I mean capatilism is awesome. I'm just saying the science and debate of global climate change has been hijacked by politicians and big business and it's definately on both sides of the argument. Elhector 19:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Gore isn't on the board of a carbon credit company. He's the chairman and co-founder of a private equity partnership that will one day invest in green-tinged small- and medium-sized businesses but currently invests in large and not-particularly-green companies like Autodesk, General Electric and Staples. It also sells unspecified "research" to companies that want to be greener. Gore doesn't buy carbon credits from this partnership, or indeed from anyone else as far as I can tell (despite what his spokesman is quoted as saying on the Gore Controversies page). The partnership buys carbon credits from carbon-credit suppliers and uses them to "offset" the partners' lifestyles so that the partnership can claim to be zero-carbon - a legitimate business expense, I suppose, when the partnership is in the business of selling green "research", but it does seem odd that a London-based company should be buying credits to cover the footprint of a mansion in Tennessee and of Mr Gore's jet travel here, there and everywhere. That's globalisation for you. Vinny Burgoo 14:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a report on the level of funding going into climate related science ([3]). You may complain about the source of my reference but the data speaks for itself on this point. As you can see this funding has been growing over the past few decades and must be, but virtue of its shear size, supporting a large number of researchers ... all of whom have a vested interest in the outcome of the debate. At this point it should be obvious to those complaining about ExxonMobil's funding that most climate researchers have already determined that it is far more lucrative to be a supporter of AGW than it is to be a skeptic. This sort of makes me wonder just how "unbiased" their opinions really are ... I mean as long as we are going to be considering the sources of one's funding, right? Personally, I prefer to let the science from either side stand on its merits rather than back biting logical fallacies. But maybe that is just me. --GoRight 22:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)