The Former lead Scientist of the ICPP sued to have his name taken off, for all the inaccuracy in the study. (Don't recall his name off hand.)

He had since been labeled as a sell out to big oil, and lost his position. The State of Washington fired it's Chief Meteorologist because he dared to question Global Warming being man-made.

Enviro-Nazis will go after any scientist that dares to challange Global Warming being caused by man.

Tell me, what did man use to warm the planet all the way back 10,000 yrs ago, when the last ice age ended? Or what had man done to start the curent warming that started 800yrs ago? And why from the 40's to the 70's, did the Earth cool, when there was little consern about Global Warming? (I still recall the ideal that Earth would become an ice ball in space in the mid 70's)

Co2 levels rise after the Earth warms, not before. And drops after the Earth cools not before, as it takes centuries to warm, or cool the oceans, the major source, or repository of Co2.

romulun wrote:The Former lead Scientist of the ICPP sued to have his name taken off, for all the inaccuracy in the study. (Don't recall his name off hand.)

He had since been labeled as a sell out to big oil, and lost his position. The State of Washington fired it's Chief Meteorologist because he dared to question Global Warming being man-made.

Enviro-Nazis will go after any scientist that dares to challange Global Warming being caused by man.

The only member I am aware of who resigned from the IPCC in protest was Paul Reiter. He did not take legal action to do so, he has not been labled as sell out, and he did not lose his job.

Mark Albright, the Washington State meteorologist you mention, lost his title (not his job–he wasn't fired from anything; State Climatologist is a volunteer position) over a dispute with fellow associate State Climatologist Philip Mote over the percentage of snowpack melt in the Cascades (both agreed the figure in question was off, they didn't agree by how much). Mark Albright was presenting information under the guise of the State Climatologist's office, even though the information had not gone through the proper quality checks, and was never agreed upon by his associate, Mote.


Albright was never Subjected to ridicule of any sort.


I am increasingly skeptical of your claims that scientists who don't accept the theory are under attack.

Tell me, what did man use to warm the planet all the way back 10,000 yrs ago, when the last ice age ended? Or what had man done to start the curent warming that started 800yrs ago? And why from the 40's to the 70's, did the Earth cool, when there was little consern about Global Warming? (I still recall the ideal that Earth would become an ice ball in space in the mid 70's)

Humans did nothing at all. Previous climate changes were not anthropogenic. 

 I strongly disagree with your claim that the current warming period started 800 years ago, please provide evidence to support this statement. Most climate scientists agree that the modern warming period started in the mid 19th century.

Lastly, the Earth cooled (or, more accurately didn't warm–there wasn't a cooling period) from the 40's through the early 70s because some other forcing temporarily overwhelmed the warming signal from the CO2. Many scientists believe the large amounts of sulfates being put into the air during the Industrial Revolution, as well as a decrease in solar activity, were the cause.

Co2 levels rise after the Earth warms, not before. And drops after the Earth cools not before, as it takes centuries to warm, or cool the oceans, the major source, or repository of Co2.

Yes, but that isn't the case with the current warming. CO2 levels are quite clearly leading temperatures.
The fact that a rise in CO2 can come after a rise in temperature means only that CO2 can be an effect, as well as a cause.

EnragedParrot,
   Despite your repeated claim that somehow Global Warming is fact and requires disputation. The actual fact is that "Global Warming" is a theory, and the burden of proof lies with those who advance this theory.
  You have not presented ANY information which would support the idea of anthropogenic "Global Warming", while criticizing all evidence that denies the existence of such "warming".
   You have stated that because temperatures were lower during the 70's that those who predicted a coming ice age were correct.  Additionally, no concern over the length of time during which temperatures have changed mean anything to you.
  
  Basically, your arguments may be summarized thus: last year there was a drought in Delaware - therefore there will always be drought in Delaware.  Or, yesterday the temperature in 33 degrees, therefore it will always be 33 degrees.
   Generally, the idea that in order to determine whether average temperatures increase or decrease requires years of data, is foreign to you.  You have ZERO understanding of even the basics of statistics.
  More importantly, you are either woefully uninformed about the debate regarding "global warming", OR, more likely, you simply lie to attempt to make points that you cannot support with facts.
  Here's a few articles & statements basically equating Global Warming Skeptics to Holocaust Deniers.  But, according to you, there is no effort to criticize or debunk those who don't belive in "Global Warming".
Heidi Cullen
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
By US Senate Environment and Public Works
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.
The Weather Channel's (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.
"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website.[Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at the bottom of Cullen's blog, very entertaining.] This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society's Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual
"It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement," Cullen added. [Note: Hurricanes (Cyclones) in the Southern Hemisphere do rotate clockwise. Also, Cullen and the media have ignored the growing climate skepticism by prominent scientists see:
Cullen's call for decertification of TV weatherman who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers."
Cullen Featured Advocate of Nuremberg-Style Trials for Climate Skeptics
In addition, Cullen's December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine's Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming.
Cullen's call for suppressing scientific dissent comes at a time when many skeptical scientists affiliated with Universities have essentially been silenced over fears of loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant money. The United Nations Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process has also steadily pushed scientists away who hold inconvenient skeptical views and reject the alarmist conclusions presented in the IPCC's summary for policymakers.
Cullen also participated in the New York premiere of the fictional Hollywood global warming disaster film The Day After Tomorrow in 2004 and has routinely promoted celebrity environmental views. The Weather Channel, which has billed itself as itself as the "pre-eminent provider of weather information," also served as a consultant to The Day After Tomorrow and allowed the use of its name and logo in the movie.
Broadcast meteorologists (TV weatherman) skeptical of climate alarmism have -- up until now -- been unburdened to speak out on climate issues. Cullen's call for decertification by the AMS can only serve to intimidate skeptics and further chill free speech in the scientific community. Stripping the "Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists could affect their livelihoods, impact their salaries and prestige. TV weathermen are truly the last of the independent scientists and past surveys have shown many of them to be skeptical of manmade global warming claims. Their independence is being threatened now. For more info on the background of the AMS seal, see: http://www.ametsoc.org/amscert
Intimidating scientists with calls for death trials, name calling and calls for decertification appears to be the accepted tactics of the climate alarmists. The real question is: Why do climate alarmists feel the need to resort to such low brow tactics when they have a compliant media willing to repeat their every assertion without question.
The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause.
Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air's Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute's small $3.6 million annual budget.
In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)
The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for "action" to combat their computer model predictions of a "climate emergency?"
That may be the real Inconvenient Truth. After all, even the UN is reportedly downgrading man's impact on the climate by 25% and now concedes that cow "emissions" are more damaging to the planet than C02 from cars.

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics
January 19, 2007
Posted by Marc Morano ( marc_moran@epw.senate.gov )
Friday January 18, 2007 9:40am

Despite receiving over 1000 comments by the public (as of 9am ET Friday), most of them harshly critical of Cullen’s call for suppressing the voices of manmade global warming skeptics [http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html ] The Weather Channel’s climate expert has refused to retract her call for scientific decertification of global warming skeptics but instead blamed the whole controversy on “spin.”

As of yet, The Weather Channel has yet to officially comment on the matter. [As of 3:38pm, Matthew de Ganon, Executive Editor of One Degree at the Weather Channel, has now posted the following response http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11598.html#readcomments ]

Instead Heidi Cullen, host of the weekly global warming show The Climate Code, tried to redirect the conversation in her blog post [ http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11592.html?cm_ven=one_deg_blog&cm_ite=one_deg_commentary&from=one_deg_commentary] late Thursday afternoon:

“I wrote a post recently that has generated some pretty strong reaction and I wanted to take a moment to stop the spin.”

While Cullen claims her comments calling on the American Meteorological Society to strip away their "Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists (TV weathermen) who disagree with her brand of global warming alarmism has somehow been “spun,” we quoted directly from her blog [ See EPW post http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528  ] and linked to the full text of her remarks so readers could decide for themselves. [ http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html ]

For the best response by a climate scientist to Cullen’s chilling call for decertification, please see AMS certified ABC-TV weatherman James Spann’s devastating critique of Cullen.  Spann, who has been in the weather business since 1978 noted “I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype” and he says that climate alarmism is driven by huge research grants that become  “the motivation for a scientific conclusion” Read  Spann’s comments here:  [http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf ]


Now Back to Cullen’s Response:

“I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.”

She calls “freedom of scientific expression” essential, but her proposal for decertification amounts to nothing less than intimidation and suppression of science.
She continues:

“Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention.”

Really? Calling for scientists to be stripped of their certification because they do not agree with your conclusions, is beyond political -- it’s censorship.

As for political --what about the Weather Channel’s participation in the Hollywood disaster 2004 film The Day After Tomorrow?  Isn’t that a tad political?

What about Cullen’s featuring of a guest on her Weather Channel program who has publicly called for Nuremberg-Style trials for climate skeptics?  See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8

What about Cullen’s March 14, 2005 call for “simple measures” to limits C02 emissions while participating in a Capitol Hill press conference? Cullen said, "The UK has cut emissions by 15 percent and it hasn't hurt their economy." Isn’t that wading into the political arena?  
[ http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200504%5CSPE20050414a.html ]

More Cullen:

“Our goal at The Weather Channel has always been to keep people out of harm's way. Whether it's a landfalling hurricane or global warming.”

According to Cullen the Weather Channel’s “goal” requires muzzling scientists who have different opinions than her own. Calling for the revoking of the certification of scientific skeptics seems to Cullen appears to believe that silencing dissent on global warming is part of her stated mission to protect the public and “keep people out of harm’s way.”

Cullen also insists that the science supports her views that mankind is creating a climate catastrophe.  

“Here at The Weather Channel, we have accepted that responsibility, and see it as our job to give YOU the facts on global warming.”

If it is Cullen’s “job” to give the Weather Channel viewers the “facts on global warming” and she is certain she is so correct, why does she fear dissenting voices?  

The answer is obvious.

In the three decades that the global warming alarmists have been hyping the coming “climate emergency” they have roundly failed to convince policy makers and the public of their cause.

Skepticism that human C02 emissions are creating a “climate catastrophe” has grown in recent times. In September 2006, renowned French geophysicists and Socialist Party member Claude Allegre, reversed himself from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. Allegre now says the cause of climate change remains “unknown.” [http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD ]

In April 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting “Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future… If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote.
[ http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 ]

    Filter by:  -- Issue-- Commitment to Cost-Benefit Analysis Commitment to Independent and Verifiable Science Commitment to Oklahoma Eco-Terrorism Environmental Accomplishments Gas PRICE Act Global Warming Gulf Coast Hurricane Response Improving the Service of the Federal Bureaucracy INHOFE SPEECH: 2007 - GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM REAC National Infrastructure and Public Works Accomplis National Security and Energy Independence  -- Region -- Four One Three Two  
  Print this page

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics
January 19, 2007
Posted by Marc Morano ( marc_moran@epw.senate.gov )
Friday January 18, 2007 9:40am

Despite receiving over 1000 comments by the public (as of 9am ET Friday), most of them harshly critical of Cullen’s call for suppressing the voices of manmade global warming skeptics [http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html ] The Weather Channel’s climate expert has refused to retract her call for scientific decertification of global warming skeptics but instead blamed the whole controversy on “spin.”

As of yet, The Weather Channel has yet to officially comment on the matter. [As of 3:38pm, Matthew de Ganon, Executive Editor of One Degree at the Weather Channel, has now posted the following response http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11598.html#readcomments ]

Instead Heidi Cullen, host of the weekly global warming show The Climate Code, tried to redirect the conversation in her blog post [ http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11592.html?cm_ven=one_deg_blog&cm_ite=one_deg_commentary&from=one_deg_commentary] late Thursday afternoon:

“I wrote a post recently that has generated some pretty strong reaction and I wanted to take a moment to stop the spin.”

While Cullen claims her comments calling on the American Meteorological Society to strip away their "Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists (TV weathermen) who disagree with her brand of global warming alarmism has somehow been “spun,” we quoted directly from her blog [ See EPW post http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528  ] and linked to the full text of her remarks so readers could decide for themselves. [ http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html ]

For the best response by a climate scientist to Cullen’s chilling call for decertification, please see AMS certified ABC-TV weatherman James Spann’s devastating critique of Cullen.  Spann, who has been in the weather business since 1978 noted “I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype” and he says that climate alarmism is driven by huge research grants that become  “the motivation for a scientific conclusion” Read  Spann’s comments here:  [http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf ]


Now Back to Cullen’s Response:

“I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.”

She calls “freedom of scientific expression” essential, but her proposal for decertification amounts to nothing less than intimidation and suppression of science.
She continues:

“Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention.”

Really? Calling for scientists to be stripped of their certification because they do not agree with your conclusions, is beyond political -- it’s censorship.

As for political --what about the Weather Channel’s participation in the Hollywood disaster 2004 film The Day After Tomorrow?  Isn’t that a tad political?

What about Cullen’s featuring of a guest on her Weather Channel program who has publicly called for Nuremberg-Style trials for climate skeptics?  See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8

What about Cullen’s March 14, 2005 call for “simple measures” to limits C02 emissions while participating in a Capitol Hill press conference? Cullen said, "The UK has cut emissions by 15 percent and it hasn't hurt their economy." Isn’t that wading into the political arena?  
[ http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200504%5CSPE20050414a.html ]

More Cullen:

“Our goal at The Weather Channel has always been to keep people out of harm's way. Whether it's a landfalling hurricane or global warming.”

According to Cullen the Weather Channel’s “goal” requires muzzling scientists who have different opinions than her own. Calling for the revoking of the certification of scientific skeptics seems to Cullen appears to believe that silencing dissent on global warming is part of her stated mission to protect the public and “keep people out of harm’s way.”

Cullen also insists that the science supports her views that mankind is creating a climate catastrophe.  

“Here at The Weather Channel, we have accepted that responsibility, and see it as our job to give YOU the facts on global warming.”

If it is Cullen’s “job” to give the Weather Channel viewers the “facts on global warming” and she is certain she is so correct, why does she fear dissenting voices?  

The answer is obvious.

In the three decades that the global warming alarmists have been hyping the coming “climate emergency” they have roundly failed to convince policy makers and the public of their cause.

Skepticism that human C02 emissions are creating a “climate catastrophe” has grown in recent times. In September 2006, renowned French geophysicists and Socialist Party member Claude Allegre, reversed himself from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. Allegre now says the cause of climate change remains “unknown.” [http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD ]

In April 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting “Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future… If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote.
[ http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 ]



No change in political climate
By Ellen Goodman  |  February 9, 2007
By every measure, the U N 's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of
alarm. The fact of global warming is "unequivocal." The certainty of the human role is now
somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get.
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just
say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies
the past and the other denies the present and future.

     
• Weblog Home ­> Why do people become climate change deniers?    • Previous entry  • Next
entry
June 30, 2005
Why do people become climate change deniers?
Posted by Richard D. North
Why do people become climate change deniers?
It is deeply pejorative to call someone a "climate change denier". This is because it is a
phrase designedly reminiscent of the idea of Holocaust Denial – the label applied by nearly
everyone to those misguided or wicked people who believe, or claim to believe, the Nazis did
not annihilate Jews, and others, in any very great numbers.



Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial
Read the letter in full here (pdf)

David Adam, environment correspondent The Guardian Wednesday September 20 2006

Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.
In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading".
In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change.
These include the International Policy Network, a thinktank with its HQ in London, and the George C Marshall Institute, which is based in Washington DC. In 2004, the institute jointly published a report with the UK group the Scientific Alliance which claimed that global temperature rises were not related to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
"There is not a robust scientific basis for drawing definitive and objective conclusions about the effect of human influence on future climate," it said.
In the letter, Bob Ward of the Royal Society writes: "At our meeting in July ... you indicated that ExxonMobil would not be providing any further funding to these organisations. I would be grateful if you could let me know when ExxonMobil plans to carry out this pledge."
The letter, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, adds: "I would be grateful if you could let me know which organisations in the UK and other European countries have been receiving funding so that I can work out which of these have been similarly providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public."
This is the first time the society has written to a company to challenge its activities. The move reflects mounting concern about the activities of lobby groups that try to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence that emissions are linked to climate change.
The groups, such as the US Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), whose senior figures have described global warming as a myth, are expected to launch a renewed campaign ahead of a major new climate change report. The CEI responded to the recent release of Al Gore's climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, with adverts that welcomed increased carbon dioxide pollution.
The latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due to be published in February, is expected to say that climate change could drive the Earth's temperatures higher than previously predicted.
Mr Ward said: "It is now more crucial than ever that we have a debate which is properly informed by the science. For people to be still producing information that misleads people about climate change is unhelpful. The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take action and we can't have people trying to undermine it."
The Royal Society letter also takes issue with ExxonMobil's own presentation of climate science. It strongly criticises the company's "corporate citizenship reports", which claim that "gaps in the scientific basis" make it very difficult to blame climate change on human activity. The letter says: "These statements are not consistent with the scientific literature. It is very difficult to reconcile the misrepresentations of climate change science in these documents with ExxonMobil's claim to be an industry leader."
Environmentalists regard ExxonMobil as one of the least progressive oil companies because, unlike competitors such as BP and Shell, it has not invested heavily in alternative energy sources.
ExxonMobil said: "We can confirm that recently we received a letter from the Royal Society on the topic of climate change. Amongst other topics our Tomorrow's Energy and Corporate Citizenship reports explain our views openly and honestly on climate change. We would refute any suggestion that our reports are inaccurate or misleading." A spokesman added that ExxonMobil stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute this year.
Recent research has made scientists more confident that recent warming is man-made, a finding endorsed by scientific academies across the world, including in the US, China and Brazil.
The Royal Society's move emerged as Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, warned that the polar ice caps were breaking up at a faster rate than glaciologists thought possible, with profound consequences for global sea levels. Professor Rapley said the change was almost certainly down to global warming. "It's like opening a window and seeing what's going on and the message is that it's worse than we thought," he said.

Wow, Eyas, that was... really long. And off topic. This thread is supposed to be about the greenhouse effect, and I'd like to see it get back on track. I'd be more than happy to respond to your objections in another thread, though.