Taking the PayPerPost Model to Climate Change

Apparently the American Enterprise Institute hopes the PayPerPost model will work in writing about climate change:

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.

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).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

As an aside, if you haven’t read the IPCC report today you should. It’s empirical, urgent, and surprisingly accessible reading, and at least you’ll know what you’re agreeing/disagreeing with rather than relying on media summaries.

[via Guardian of London]


  1. Don’t forget that both sides are paid for on this issue. Huge numbers of scientists make their living off of global warming, so they are are not unbiased.
    I think global warming is real and partially due to man, however I suspect the the cure is worse than disease.

  2. As a trained scientist the biggest issue I have with the doc is it contains little to no discussion of the statistical methods used to enable the authors to use statements with the terms “very likely”, “more likely than not”, etc….
    You do not need to be a climatologist to appreciate the huge inferential jumps that are made to link an increase in CO2 to an increase in average global temperatures to climate change that may or may not be construed as detrimental to the earth.

  3. One Way Stox says:

    global warming is this decade’s Y2K, or killer bees, or ‘eugenics’. it’s a myth/lie.
    –temps fell b/t 1940 & 1970, even as CO2 levels rose
    –increased levels of CO2 act as a fertilizer, promoting plant growth seen in shrinking of the Sahara Desert

  4. Don’t you notice the correlation between the increase in GHG’s in the atmosphere and the increase in technology company analysts in the atmosphere? Hmmm?