To go along with our previous coverage of the newest report on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Guardian in the U.K. is reporting that the American Enterprise Institute is offering $10,000 each to any scientist willing to undermine the I.P.C.C.'s report. The AEI is funded by... drumroll... ExxonMobil.

Again, according the the Guardian, "The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees." And, they also offered travel expenses. "The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organization had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report."

I think that they were kind of cheap on this one. I mean, if they made $1,252.54 every second last year, they could have ponied up more than that! A measly ten seconds of their time (in profit) to each scientist. For shame.

Tad Murty, Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, all of whom believe that humans do not contribute anything to global warming, all are to be in London on Monday to refute the findings of the I.P.C.C. The Guardian reports that this London meeting is being paid for by ExxonMobil as well.

If you don't believe in global warming, or don't think that humans have anything to do with it... remember: despite the fact that I don't disagree with the findings of the I.P.C.C., I'm just reporting the news, I don't write it.

Related:

• Is this the be-all, end-all proof of global warming and whether our cars cause it?
• Lights out in Europe as a demonstration of concern over climate change
• Guess who made $1,252 a second, every second last year?

[Source: The Guardian]

I probably disagree with the conservative commentators from the American Enterprise Institute 80 percent of the time, but Kenneth Green is right on track with his latest think piece. He's for dumping all energy subsidies and taxing anything that harms the environment. That way the free market will sort out the good and bad as well as promote more efficient sources of energy. My only suggestion is to make sure that these taxes don't involve credits that rich companies can buy or trade on the open market to avoid their environmental obligations.

I especially appreciated Green's assessment that "subsidies create a fertile garden for rent seekers." We've seen a plans for ethanol plants on hold or crumbling because savvy investors are holding back. They see that some avenues such as ethanol are completely dependent on subsidies or sky-high oil prices. I would rather see grants for more fast-track research on alternatives such as biofuels from algae.

Related:

• Report: Let's keep a closer eye on ethanol subsidies
• Study shows Americans pay billions for ethanol subsidies
• Biofuels conference highlights dependence on subsidies

[Source: Kenneth P. Green/American Enterprise Institute]