Still haven't head a response from Roger Pielke Jr. over whether there was payment for him to write for Cato's Regulation Magazine.....

Benny Big Eye

my opinion is that too much of an emphasis is put on who funds stuff.  science should be judged on its merits, not on funding source.  the work of gray, baliunus, lindzen, etc. is terrible science all by itself, not because an odious think-tank paid for it.  I find these arguments dull rather than sharpen the discussion.

What seems unique here is they have the money before the horse.

Usually scientific folk submit ideaas and a budget to a committee and wait around with an acid indigestion waiting for results.

In this case they hang a sum of money out and say, "go for it."  Does not seem like the "Good Old Days."  With integrity and ethics it may be OK, but what about the appearance of fairness doctrine?

Bob Aegerter Pacific Northwest

Andrew -

Your posts on this insanity have been somewhat more moderate than most, but you're still missing the story entirely. Every single paragraph of the letter to North and Schroeder focused explicitly on climate policy. I'll put some emphasis on the words here, as they seem to have been hard for some people to see in the letter you posted:

The very first sentence of the letter to Schroeder and North reads: "The American Enterprise Institute is launching a major project to produce a review and policy critique of the forthcoming  Fourth Assessment Report..." This is exactly what Nicholas Stern did - reviewed the science with scientists to find what he felt was most relevant to economics, then discuss policy. Think his people worked for free?

The next paragraph begins by saying that the purpose of the project is "to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change.

What we specifically requested of North and Schroeder in the third paragraph was a "well-supported but accessible discussion of which elements of climate modeling have demonstrated predictive value that might make them policy-relevant and which elements of climate modeling have less levels of predictive utility, and hence, less utility in developing climate policy."

We expected them to co-author the paper, and split the honorarium. $5,000 would not buy Gerry North's integrity, no more than $50,000 would.

Why Steve Schroeder gave you the letter to post (leading to an unpleasant bout of character assassination) is a complete mystery to me. We had previously co-authored papers, and he should have known I do not reject the scientifically-conservative claims of the IPCC, and never have. Steve could simply have asked who else would be involved, rather than assume we'd be taking extreme voices on board. That would have been far more honorable than setting the stage for a political attack on a former co-author and, I had thought, a collegial friend.

While I will respect Steve's privacy more than he did mine, out of a sense of fairness, I would like you to ask Steve if he did the previous work for Reason or Fraser Institute for free and post his response here, as you did our letter.

Kenneth Green ----------------------------- Resident Scholar American Enterprise Institute (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_z988HfVZD8').innerHTML = output; //]]>