Tweet

CLIMATE scientists must sometimes feel that they’re taking part in some horrific, humourless worldwide game of Chinese Whispers.

After spending months, in some cases years, diligently carrying out research, checking, re-checking and quantifying observations and data, they submit their discovery to a science journal.

Journal editors then send that work out to other scientists who pick holes in it, or praise it, before sending it back with the academic equivalents of those smiley faces or red crosses that school teachers loved to draw on your school books.

Issues with the research are then rectified (if they can be) and finally the work is published. Except of course, that’s not the end of the story.

Tweet

There’s no doubt that it’s new day for climate policy in the United States with Representative Henry Waxman, a leading champion in Congress of laws to protect the environment and fight global warming, beating out Dingell who spent the last two years more interested in boosting the Big Auto lobby and fighting against higher fuel economy standards for cars.

The question for me is whether we will now see a sequel to the “Waxman Hearings” on Big Oil, like the ones he held on Big Tobacco.

Tweet

Here's an October 1995 internal memo I came across written by someone at tobacco giant Philip Morris outlining all the "public policy grants" and the totals received by US think tanks and associations.

More than a few of the familiar names involved in the industry-funded war on climate science appear on this list, including:

Competitive Enterprise Institute - $200,000

…