DeSmog

AEI Looking for "Middle Ground" in Climate Debate

authordefault
on

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI ) is once again offering $10,000 payments to scientists who will comment on climate change – this time in the search for policy options that will open up a “middle ground” in the debate over climate change policy.

This fascinating-if-true development is reported here on the Science and Politics of Global Climate Change Blog.

For the record, the payment – for essays of between 7,500 and 10,000 words – is comparable to what a middling public magazine might pay for a badly researched piece of journalism. On one hand, if AEI offered more, it might hope to get more senior writers than those who contributed to the recently released Fraser Institute critique of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report.

On the other hand, if AEI offered more, we would be even quicker to accuse them of buying science. Their only real option is to proceed in good faith. If they really want to open up a helpful discussion of reasonable policy options, it will become obvious soon enough.

Related Posts

on

The Conservative candidate has changed his tune on climate action, recently attacking Labour’s net zero policies and arguing for new fossil fuel extraction.

The Conservative candidate has changed his tune on climate action, recently attacking Labour’s net zero policies and arguing for new fossil fuel extraction.

Clintel’s fifth anniversary conference in town outside Amsterdam offers a glimpse of the group’s transatlantic ties.

Clintel’s fifth anniversary conference in town outside Amsterdam offers a glimpse of the group’s transatlantic ties.
on

The government is being taken to court for failing to publish the evidence provided to ministers before they backed the controversial scheme.

The government is being taken to court for failing to publish the evidence provided to ministers before they backed the controversial scheme.

Les responsables de campagne critiquent des programmes volontaires « fortement défectueux », tandis que l’analyse de DeSmog révèle l'absence de représentation de la société civile ou des communautés locales affectées par les dommages causés par l’industrie des farines et huiles de poisson.

Les responsables de campagne critiquent des programmes volontaires « fortement défectueux », tandis que l’analyse de DeSmog révèle l'absence de représentation de la société civile ou des communautés locales affectées par les dommages causés par l’industrie des farines et huiles de poisson.