"AEI Critiques of Warming Questioned"

Read the full report subtitled "Think Tank Defends Money Offers to Challenge Climate Report" by Juliet Eilperin in The Washington Post, February 5, 2007.

According to this article, The American Enterprise Institute is offering US$10,000 to prospective authors of a report it is preparing to challenge the new report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green -- one of two researchers who has sought to commission the critiques -- said in an interview that his group is examining the policy debate on global warming, not the science.

"It's completely policy-oriented," said Green, adding that a third of the academics AEI solicited for the project are interested in participating. "Somebody wants to distort this.".......

"The purpose of the project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on policy responses to climate change," the two men wrote. "As with any large-scale 'consensus' process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work of the complete Working Group reports."

AEI is a conservative Think Tank, reported to have been very influential in the Bush administration and with conservative Republican politicians. The article quotes a Greenpeace spokesperson that, "AEI has received funding from Exxon Mobil in recent years".

Comment: I think it is appropriate to critique the process by which the IPCC develops its reports, and I think it is reasonable to reimburse authors for their work in contributing to such a critique. The amount seems a little excessive to me, but I don't know how much time and effort are expected from the authors. Indeed, I rather like the idea of Think Tanks representing differing points of view independently reviewing so important a report and the process by which it was formulated.

So why does this make me uneasy? It is not that Exxon Mobile funds AEI, but that the support for AEI is dependent on its conservative stance. (When did conservative and conservationist become antonyms?) Were AEI to report that climate change is a serious problem and recommend vigorous U.S. action to limit greenhouse gas emissions, I suspect a lot of its supporters would object and some would withdraw financial support.

The scenarios for global warming and its consequences are dire, and most people have difficulty understanding that the process is cumulative and will seriously affect their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The projections are increasing in precision, and even if the less likely lower estimates prove accurate the situation will be grave. The confidence in the scenarios is increasing. The precautionary principle requires that we act as soon as we can to ameliorate the damage.

The failure of the U.S. government, and especially of the Republican politicians, which has delayed action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is unfortunate. It is especially unfortunate in that we could do a lot with little pain and some gain in economic advantage. Those who develop green technologies first and as a result gain a dominant market position, can expect to reap great economic benefits in the next century. JAD