<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial size=5>Scientists offered cash to dispute climate
study</FONT></STRONG><FONT face=Arial size=5>
<P><STRONG></STRONG></P></FONT><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><STRONG>Ian Sample,
science correspondent</STRONG><BR></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2><FONT
face=Arial><B>Friday February 2, 2007</B><BR></FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
<P><B>Guardian</B></P></FONT><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>Scientists and
economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the
world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to
be published today. </FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an
ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered
the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the
UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). </FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
</FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial>The UN report was written by international experts and is
widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science.
It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed
the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments
were given a draft last year and invited to comment. </FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial>The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and
more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration.
Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of
trustees. </FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial>The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and
elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and
dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the
analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations
of climate model outputs". </FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an
attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global
warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort
science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research
Unit at the University of East Anglia. </FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial>"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open
review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the
public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on
sound scientific advice," he said. </FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial>The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar
at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists,
economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that
would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report. </FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial>"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One
group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other
group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think
that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy." </FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial>One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears
that the report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know
if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should
ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a professor at
Texas A&M university. </FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial>The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret
since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It
says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that
global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century,
depending on emissions. </FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society,
Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's
leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a
comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is
expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is
already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to
unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international
action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there
will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest
otherwise." </FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a
thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra.
They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate
change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action.
All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash." </FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial>On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada
will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its
authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no
contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson
and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels
and global warming.</FONT></FONT>
<CENTER><FONT face=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif size=1>Guardian Unlimited © Guardian
News and Media Limited 2007</FONT></CENTER></DIV></BODY></HTML>