British scientists get to root of global warming "debate"

Here's where the global warming "debate" stands right now: On the science of global warming, there is little debate -- just an overwhelming consensus among experts that temperatures are rising, and human activity is a major factor.But the idea that there is a "debate" stays alive, largely because politicians and the media are plied with a steady stream of dubious data -- produced by academics who are funded by energy companies -- which argues that either global warming isn't a problem, or that human activity isn't to blame.As long as industry-backed "studies" are available, officials dedicated to inaction can bog the issue down -- like NOAA press officer (and media head for the GOP's 2004 convention) Chuck Fuqua, who denied CNBC an interview with a NOAA scientist because he disagreed with business-backed researchers that denied a link between human activity and global warming. [SEE UPDATE ABOVE.]Paying scientists to say global warming isn't an issue has been a successful industry strategy for decades. But the tide may be turning, as scientists and political leaders attack the issue at its roots by exposing science-for-hire.We reported last month about the office of Gov. Tim Kaine in Virginia condemning state climatologist Patrick J. Michaels -- a global warming-denier at the University of Virginia who received $150,000 from a Colorado utility company to fund his research.Today, the Guardian in London reports that scientists are turning up pressure on Dallas-based ExxonMobil for its role in propping up bad science: 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".The question now: on this side of the Atlantic, will the National Academy of Sciences join in calling for Big Energy to get out of meddling in climate research, and support the integrity of free scientific inquiry?UPDATE: One item not clear in the post: the Royal Society had received a pledge from Exxon earlier this year that it wouldn't continue to fund groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which in the wake of Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth, had "welcomed increased carbon dioxide pollution." The Royal Society's latest letter (pdf) is aimed at ensuring the energy giant is honoring the pledge.