Gore – Its Big Oil!


This guy is unbelievable. 

Remember the report Mike posted on yesterday about the 400 scientists who dismiss the man-made global warming hysteria.  Here is Gore’s answer: (h/t Newsbusters)

After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.

Exxon Mobil spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories.

In typical Clintonian fashion he attempts to discredit those who disagree with him to deflect the attention away from the real story.  That being the fact that the debate is NOT over, nor should it ever be over.   Science doesn’t work that way.

Even more disturbing, as Noel Sheppard brings up, the man has made a ton of money off of the global warming hysteria:

Pretty amazing coming from a man that likely has made what some
estimate is $100 million in the past seven years selling this canard to
the public

But lets look at those who agree with Gore’s position.  You think any of them are funded by some big liberal organizations like the Soros Foundation, Think Progress, Media Matters, Greenpeace and the like?

You bet your ass they are funded by these groups.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Oh I see the link. You see big oil paid taxes. Some of that tax money went to pay those scientists. Therefore big oil did fund those statements.

That group also paid Al Gore’s salary when he was in office and now with his pension. Big oil also funded, through taxes, the scientists that blamed global warming on humans. Now can we say big oil funds Al Gore’s rant on global warming?


I’m not a scientist but there is a simple test to put the lie to the global warming thingie.

Every weather station in the world has historical highs and lows for every day of the year going back for however long that station has been in existence.

On any given day the high and low temperature recorded that day is the highest, lowest or somewhere in between historical records for that day.

There has to be a way to count the number of record highs and lows (normalized for the number of years that station has been in existence) recorded by state, region, country or continent in any given month, quarter, season or year.

If there is global warming then the hockey stick effect would show the number of record highs increasing and the number of record lows decreasing. DUH!

Even Gore could compile this data. Could it be that this simple test disproves his premise?

Why are the motives of scientists questioned, along with the source of funding, when they support a skeptical view on the alarmism surrounding global warming; and never the motives of those scientists whose research funding is fueled by those with a stake in the belief of the alarmist vision of climate change?

Scenes from the Climate Inquisition:

On February 2, an AEI research project on climate change policy that we have been organizing was the target of a journalistic hit piece in Britain’s largest left-wing newspaper, the Guardian. The article’s allegation–that we tried to bribe scientists to criticize the work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)–is easy to refute. More troubling is the growing worldwide effort to silence anyone with doubts about the catastrophic warming scenario that Al Gore and other climate extremists are putting forth.

“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,” read the Guardian’s lead. The byline was Ian Sample, the paper’s science correspondent, and his story ran under the headline “Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study.”

Sample spoke to one of us for five minutes to gather a perfunctory quotation to round out his copy, but he clearly was not interested in learning the full story. He found time, however, to canvass critics for colorful denunciations of the American Enterprise Institute as “the Bush administration’s intellectual Cosa Nostra,” with nothing but “a suitcase full of cash.”

Every claim in the story was false or grossly distorted, starting with the description of the American Enterprise Institute as a “lobby group”–AEI engages in no lobbying–funded by the world’s largest oil company. The Guardian reports that “AEI has received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil.” Yes–over the last
seven years, a sum that represents less than 1 percent of AEI’s total revenue during that period.

The irony of this story line is that AEI and similar right-leaning groups are more often attacked for supposedly ignoring the scientific “consensus” and promoting only the views of a handful of “skeptics” from the disreputable fringe. Yet in this instance, when we sought the views of leading “mainstream” scientists, our project is said to be an attempt at bribery. In any event, it has never been true that we ignore mainstream science; and anyone who reads AEI publications closely can see that we are not “skeptics” about warming. It is possible to accept the general consensus about the existence of global warming while having valid questions about the extent of warming, the consequences of warming, and the appropriate responses. In particular, one can remain a policy skeptic, which is where we are today, along with nearly all economists.