|
I feel obliged to point out that AEI is funded by two multi-billion dollar oil corporations, Koch industries and Gulf oil, and is a conservative think tank. It has essentially bribed scientists with $10,000+ to critique the IPCC's assessment of the current climate situation; an assessment that is in accordance with the scientific consensus. Furthermore, Hayward is a frequent contributor to AEI. If AEI were truly an unbiased source then the vast majority of the literature there would be in support of global warming. I would challenge you to find one article there espousing that view.
|
According to the most recent annual report on the AEI website the sources of revenue were:
36% Individuals
27% Conferences, Book Sales and other revenues
21% Corporations
16% Foundations
I think the above values are from their 2007 report since I could not find their 2008 report. So if 2007 is a typical year then corporate donations appear to be 21% of their revenue. However it is possible that some conference attendees were employees of corporations and had their conferences fees paid or reimbursed by their employers. Thus the revenue from corporations might be more than 21% but how much more is difficult to tell based on the information I have found. I am not an AEI supporter or defender but I do think if we criticize AEI then the criticism should be based on presenting the information. And I do think AEI should be criticized; just like I think the ExxonMobil, the IPCC, the UN, the local knitting club and every other organization should be criticized. No sacred cows and no free rides.
Now to the broader issue of funding and research. It is often implied indirectly or said explicitly that individuals and groups will bias their research and reporting based on their funding. Given what we know of humans this would not surprise me. However I suggest that we need to avoid automatically discrediting something just based on funding since it is possible for accurate research to be funded by a source with a vested interest just as it is possible for inaccurate research. I am not saying the outcomes are equally likely; I am just saying both are possible.
I would also caution people who continue using funding source as a basis of criticism that this is can boomerang. Consider the various governments, companies, foundations and other sources who claim that global warming is a serious, imminent, human caused threat. If the amount that they put into funding exceeds the amount put in by ExxonMobil and similar companies then the funding argument can backfire.
I mention all of this because I really think we need to de-politicize the entire discussion and have an open and transparent discussion with all of the raw data, the research methods, the assumptions, everything placed for all to easily and freely see and evaluate.
So for example how about reading the article (
http://www.aei.org/article/101395) and criticizing it based on its content not on the website on which it is published. I have read the article. Most of what I read in the article are things I had seen elsewhere, although the part of the article about improving IPCC and improving climate research might be interesting. However, more in-depth analysis is needed for those proposals.
Similar Threads
). The university has a database of articles by professors and academics from far and wide, white I believe is connected to most major universities worldwide. As you would imagine, it's much more credible than Google. Although if you search Google's scholarly articles and are willing to sift and have plenty of time to read, you can find interesting stuff too.
Hybrid Mode
