This year was a little different, and i was reminded of Groundhogs day when i had heard rumors that my good buddies down at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) had dropped off a SUITCASE FULL OF CASH to the groundhog in order to potentially influence his 'prediction'.
The AEI, an ExxonMobil-funded conservative thinktank with close ties to the Bush Administration, determined that an early-spring prediction compounded with this already unseasonably warm winter, might fan the flames on the hot topic of global warming. The AEI offered the payments for articles that emphasise the limitations of the groundhogs shadow gazing method of climatological prediction. More than two dozen AEI alumni have served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions.
Thankfully, our furry bucktoothed friend threw the suitcase back at Lynn Cheney - Dick Cheneys wife and AEI senior fellow claiming:
"Bitch - i'm a fucking GROUNDHOG! What the fuck am i supposed to do with a suitcase full of money!?"

Needless to say, the 'hog said early spring, and crawled back into his hole - and Lynn Cheney crawled back into her hole too.
But in all sincerity, this actually happened, except not to the groundhog - It happened to a consortium of British scientists on Feb 2nd. The Guardian UK reported:
"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies ... offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ... The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs"
In other words: the AEI is whining about science being irrefutable. The IPCC report was published the same day and of course yielded the results everyone has been expecting:
"A substantial portion of the IPCC's membership argued that global warming was "virtually certain" to have been caused by human activity."
and
"The really chilling thing about the IPCC report is that it is the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect. Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role. Each paragraph of this report was therefore argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process. This is a very conservative document - that's what makes it so scary,"
'Nuff said really. the main point is that this isn't some left wing liberal leaning organization or Al Gore here - this is science at its most conservative, and i don't know how you can spin that around, even with a suitcase full of dough. Now, I don't think much of Greenpeace, they're intentions are good, but i think extremist environmental groups tend to just give a good cause a bad name to most of the populous. But Ben Stewart from Greenpeace had a great quote:
"The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."
werd.


