An inconvenient truth:"Dick Cheney's office was behind a push to censor congressional testimony that global warming poses a danger to the public."

Previously: Email? What email?

Comments

[DeacSteve]

You know things a very bad when you no longer shake your head in disbelief when reading things like that.

[Roch101]

John Stewart's take on the "I can't hear you" email.

[Robert P.]

I agree with DeacSteve. Where are we that my response to this is "Well, duh. yawn."

[Dave Ribar]

Other inconvenient truths that have been suppressed.

My guess is that the 6 pages of testimony along with the e-mails are in the crate next to the Ark of the Covenant.

[scharrison]

Dave, you can tell Bubba that he's wasting his time. Steve Mcintyre is a Marshall Instiutute wonk, and 5.5 million Exxon dollars will buy quite a bit of believable science.

[Beelzebubba]

information is bad for knowledge

[eric]

@scharrison: "5.5 million Exxon dollars will buy quite a bit of believable science."

Indeed it will. See here and here.

[James Protzman]

Great links, Eric. Thanks.

[John]

Ed, why the play on words? The WSJ is reporting on climate change; not "global warming". The reason it is reporting on "climate change" is because the temperature has been cooling for the past 10 years. Even Dr Gray has said we are just going through a normal cycle. Sheez, what a bunch of crap, just so Al Gore can make millions trading carbon credits.

[Spag]

I thought the debate was over and everyone agreed (except of course the actual temperatures for the past 20 years).

Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

[Dave Dobson]

Oh, god, Sam's doing it again.

[scharrison]

Wow. Thanks, Eric.

You have to admire Exxon's efficiency, though. Buying custom-made research is a sound investment, especially as long as our government laps that shit up like it's starving to death.

[Reader]

As seen with tobacco company "research" into whether cigarettes caused cancer, the "research" performed by Exxon and other hucksters are not intended to actually refute the actual science that indicates that inhaling toxic smoke might actually harm you or in this example, that burning massive amounts of carbon fuels might indeed cause greenhouse warming, but to induce weak-minded individuals into thinking that there may not be a connection between the cause and effect.

In other words, by introducing "studies" that show evidence contrary to 99% of all the other science out there, they hope to muddy the issue and stall and delay any legislation that might affect their business, i.e. money. It's a delay tactic to preserve profits, nothing more. As Cheney represents oil interests, he must fight for his constituency.

There will always be "doubters" who won't believe the reams of scientific data from NASA, NOAA, etc. that the earth is warming, but then again there were a lot of people who believed that cigarette smoke "warranted further study" before reaching the same conclusion that scientists did decades earlier.