A CLOSER LOOK AT CLIMATE CHANGE (PART 10)

FOLLOW THE MONEY

One week ago, on 11/14/2010, I posted some examples of financial incentives certain groups may have in corrupting the science of climate change in a manner that would encourage results desirable to the financiers and thus keep the cash cow of AGW financing alive and well (CLCC - 5). I want to explore that angle in a little more detail with this post (CLCC - 10).

I cited data from a watchdog group, the George C. Marshall Policy Outlook Institute  (GCMPOI), where facts and figures regarding who is funding climate research, which, in turn tells us why, and further tells us what the funding bodies expect to gain from the research. I also cited data from a couple of other sources that I've had to revise, as there is disagreement between the GCMPOI data and the data from other sources. In this instance I consider the GCMPOI data more reliable. Here are some excerpts from their report: The study of climate change science and the policy ramifications of climate change is a multi-billion enterprise in the United States.



The report went on to say: A cursory glimpse of the list of recipients of those private funds reveals that the vast majority are spent by groups favoring restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and believe that climate change requires dramatic government action.

These findings appear to validate The Weather Chanel co-founder John Coleman's opinion (CLCC - 3)

"What bothered me was, the other scientists had accepted it, and why did they possibly do that? And I think the real answer to that question is, they all have an agenda, an environmental and political agenda that said “let’s pile on here, we’re all gonna make a lot of money, we’re gonna get research grants, we’re gonna get awards, we’re all gonna become famous, and I guess that’s what happened”.


This report also validates James Spann, TV meteorologist at an ABC affiliate in Alabama (CLCC - 8), says: *Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at The Weather Channel probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab".

It's evident that pro-AGW research is well funded by private groups and the U.S. government so a favorable business and political climate can be pursued. But that just barely scratches the surface. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) issued a report in 2007 that projected per annum expenditures for mitigation alone would be $200-210 billion. They estimate more than $432 billion should be spent annually on energy research with $148 billion dedicated to renewable energy sources. Now, in a sense, this may not seem all bad - in fact, it would seem there is a very positive aspect to this kind of investment money being directed at weening off from fossil fuels, but the question begs itself - where is this investment money going to come from? Taxes? Is investment in these technologies going to get paid for on the backs of working people when it's doubtful that all this will have any meaningful effect on global temperatures? We are currently in the grip of a ten year cooling trend - not warming trend. This cooling trend beginning around the year 2000 coincides nicely with a dearth of sunspot activity over the same period (CLCC - 6), so if policy makers decide to levy steep carbon taxes on the people so they can funnel money to investors so they in turn can invest on saving the planet just in time for colder global temperatures to arrive for the next 20-35 years before resuming their on-again-off-again climb for the next 400 years, well, that wouldn't be good for anybody but the investors who are now getting rich on climate change, and it would likewise be a good thing for the AGW scientists whom the investors are putting to work making their investments pay off.

Looking at the BIG PICTURE, there is a lot more money in studying climate change as an urgent man-made problem than there is in studying it in a dispassionate manner. To be sure, some private foundations funded by big money interests such as ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, and Massey Energy provide funding for sympathetic researchers, which taints these researchers every bit as much as those receiving money from foundations and other entities who stand to gain from the hysteria. The money from pro-AGW interests dwarfs the money coming in to fund research aimed at discrediting the AGW scenario. This is as good an explanation as I can think of to explain the curious fact that 95% of the noise we hear is coming from the AGW ideologues while only about 5% is coming from the other direction. Not a good balance, if you were to ask my humble opinion.