In a statement the redefines the notion of cogent argument for the worse, Exxon has launched a volley at Greenpeace saying that the oil giant's stance against Kyoto, their opposition to the European carbon trading system, and their funding of climate change denier groups does not make they themselves 'deniers'.

Mr Cohen (Exxon spokesman) was in London to explain the position of Exxon.

The firm's funding of third-party thinktanks, which have produced papers questioning the human role in climate change, has recently been heavily criticised in a Greenpeace report.

Exxon retaliated yesterday by saying some of Greenpeace's facts were "just flat wrong" and in one case "absurd", though the company hinted that it may stop funding the controversial thinktanks.

Nice explanation. Exxon maintains that it is supportive of an international cap and trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, so long as they continue to fund deception campaigns on global warming and oppose international agreements, like Kyoto, that represent a bare minimum of what needs to be accomplished, the logical conclusion is that they will not endorse a level of carbon limits that would genuinely address the problem of climate change.

On the upside, if their arguments continue to become weaker and more absurd it just might mean that we're moving closer to more aggressive action on the issue.

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is denying that it was prepared to pay global warming skeptics to publish reports that case doubt on the UN climate change report released Friday.

However, Greenpeace obtained a copy of a letter sent out by the AEI making the pitch to a climate scientist in Texas. In the July 5th letter, scholars for the organization wrote:

"As with any large-scale `consensus' process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work of the complete... reports."

In addition to the perverse framing above, the letter offered $10,000 for an essay of 7,500 to 10,000 words, in addition to "honoraria" and travel expenses for participation in a series of conferences.

The negative responses from the scientists contacted by the AEI ultimately led them to abandon the project.

As most now know, the world's foremost body addressing global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released their 4th report this past Friday. The document is the most comprehensive report on the impacts of climate change ever produced and included the input of 600 authors from 40 countries, over 620 expert reviewers, government reviewers, and representatives from 113 governments.

Even more forcefully than in their 2001 report, the findings emphasize that human activity is to blame for massive increases in greenhouse gases and that the earth is facing catastrophic risks from global warming. Specific projections include:

• Probable temperature rise between 1.8C and 4C Possible temperature rise between 1.1C and 6.4C
• Sea level most likely to rise by 28-43cm
• Arctic summer sea ice disappears in second half of century
• Increase in heatwaves very likely
• Increase in tropical storm intensity likely

But despite the overwhelming consensus on the threats we face, and our own blame for them, opponents are still massing resources to try to falsely diminish this scientific work. In addition to the Fraser Institute's upcoming response report, the Guardian and others are reporting that the Exxon funded American Enterprise Institute offered to pay scientists and economists $10,000 a shot for articles that contradict or criticize the IPCC's report. When you've posted the biggest profit in the history of the world, whats a few thousand dollars?

Get ready. More will surely be on the way.

The policy makers summary of the IPCC report can be accessed here.

This Friday, the most comprehensive scientific examination of global warming every performed will be released to the public when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) unveils their 4th report - a project that took 6 years and includes the input of 2,500 of the world's leading scientists.

But when you are an oil industry funded think tank you don't need to be that thorough. You can just write your criticism in advance.

That is exactly what the Fraser Institute has done. Desmogblog obtained a leaked copy of their "independent summary" of the upcoming IPCC report - a 53 page document critiquing the findings of the IPCC panel despite the fact that the final report has not been released. Organizations like the Fraser Instute would be in an uproar if the IPCC published a summary of document they hadn't read, but right wing wonk tanks care even less about being hypocrites than they do about sound science.

In a more tempered statement Dr. Andrew Weaver, the lead author of the upcoming IPCC report has the Fraser Institute effort "highly ideological".

One doesn't have to guess at the sort of ideology the Fraser Institute brings to their effort. Having received $120,000 in funding from Exxon-Mobil in recent years, the Fraser Institute report offers the best possible analysis of climate change.......from the perspective of their funders.

The full Fraser Institute report can be read here.

This week the Union of Concerned Scientists published a new report stating that between 1998 and 2005 Exxon-Mobil gave nearly $16 million to organizations working to create confusion over global warming science. The report is only the latest in an increasing number of statements condemning the oil giant for funding disinformation campaigns, but this one may have been the straw that broke the camels back.

Exxon Vice President for Public Affairs Kenneth Cohen has announced that the the company now accepts the reliability of global warming science and has announced the end of their funding to organizations that deny climate change science, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) who were made laughably famous for their near parody "CO2 - They call it pollution, We call it life" television ad.

Exxon now says they ready to work with policy makers on regulations, which they anticipate will be coming soon.

Exxon wants any regulation to be applied across "the broadest possible base" of the economy, said Jaime Spellings, Exxon's general manager for corporate planning. Exxon says avoiding a ton of carbon-dioxide emissions is, with certain exceptions, less expensive in the power industry than in the transportation sector. Though solar energy remains expensive, reducing a ton of emissions by generating electricity from essentially carbon-free sources such as nuclear or wind energy is cheaper than reducing a ton of emissions through low-carbon transportation fuels such as ethanol.