A recent
article by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), concerning a number of peer reviewed scientific papers, has received widespread global condemnation from environmentalists, scientists and some of the authors of the papers themselves. The article references more than 900 papers which, according to the GWPF, refute "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of
AGW.
Further investigation into the claims has found that nine of the ten authors cited as
Skeptical of "Man-Made" climate change have links to organisations funded by ExxonMobil, with many co-authoring several papers with Exxon-funded contributors. The top ten contributors are alone responsible for 186 of the papers cited by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The data also shows that there are many other familiar climate sceptic names among the major contributors to the list.
Dr Sherwood B Idso is the most cited academic on the list, having authored or co-authored 67 of the 938 papers analysed, which is seven percent of the total. Why is this important, and what does it indicate? The "900+ papers" list is supposed to be proof that a large number of different scientists reject the scientific consensus on climate change. Once you crunch the numbers however, you find that the majority of this new list is made up of a small network of individuals who co-author papers and share funding ties to the oil industry.
 |
| US Climate Change Lobbyists. |
Exxon Mobil and others who profit from selling fossil fuels are clearly underwriting "science" that calls the reality of climate change into question. But the money shapes the messaging and pollutes the minds of those who aren't paying attention. Three respected scientists have independently complained that their climate studies have been misrepresented by sceptics in order to bolster the list of papers thrown together to challenge the consensus on global warming.
It is possible to find scientific papers which question the theory, particularly if you look further back in time before scientific certainty on this issue solidified. But by examining this list in more detail, it becomes clear that rather than capturing broad scientific opposition to the reality of manmade climate change: A significant chunk of the list is authored by a small group of writers with extensive links to each other and to the oil industry.
