An absolutely damning exposé about the way money and political expediency drives the sham “research” that underlies arguments for anthropogenic global warming, from somebody who knows a whole lot more about science than Charles Johnson does – Climate Money: Monopoly Science
(Hat Tip: Escovado)
Despite the billions of dollars in funding, outrageous mistakes have been made. One howler in particular, rewrote history and then persisted for years before one dedicated fact checker, working for free, exposed the fraud about the Hockey Stick Graph. Meanwhile agencies like the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, can’t afford to install temperature sensors to meet its own guidelines, because the workers are poorly trained and equipped to dig trenches only with garden trowels and shovels. NOAA “adjust” the data after the fact—apparently to compensate for sensors which are too close to air conditioners or car parks, yet it begs the question: If the climate is the biggest problem we face; if billions of dollars are needed, why can’t we install thermometers properly?
How serious are they about getting the data right? Or are they only serious about getting the “right” data?
The real total of vested interests in climate-change science is far larger than just scientists doing pure research. The $30 billion in funding to the CCSP (graphed above) does not include work on green technologies like improving solar cells, or storing a harmless gas underground. Funding for climate technologies literally doubles the amount of money involved, and provides a much larger pool of respectable-looking people with impressive scientific cachet to issue more press releases—most of which have little to do with basic atmospheric physics, but almost all of which repeat the assumption that the climate will warm due to human emissions. In other words: a 30-billion-dollar cheer squad….
[snip]
Normally this might not be such a problem, because the lure of fame and fortune by categorically “busting” a well-accepted idea would attract some people. In most scientific fields, if someone debunks a big Nature or Science paper, they are suddenly cited more often; are the next in line for a promotion and find it easier to get grants. They attract better PhD students to help, are invited to speak at more conferences, and placed higher in the program. Instead in climate science, the reward is the notoriety of a personal attack page on Desmog1, ExxonSecrets2 or Sourcewatch3, dedicated to listing every mistake on any topic you may have made, any connection you may have had with the fossil fuel industry, no matter how long ago or how tenuous. The attack-dog sites will also attack your religious beliefs if you have any. Roy Spencer, for example, has been repeatedly attacked for being Christian (though no one has yet come up with any reason why that could affect his satellite data).
Ironically, the “activist” websites use paid bloggers. DeSmog is a funded wing of a professional PR group Hoggan4 and Associates (who are paid to promote clients5 like David Suzuki Foundation, ethical funds, and companies that sell alternative energy sources like hydro power, hydrogen and fuel cells.) ExxonSecrets is funded by Greenpeace6 (who live off donations to “save” the planet, and presumably do better when the planet appears to need saving).
Most scientific fields are looking for answers, not looking to prove only one side of a hypothesis. There are a few researchers who are paid to disprove the hypothesis of Global Warming, and most of them are investigated and pilloried as if they were a politician running for office. This is not how science works, by ad hominem attack. The intimidation, disrespect and ostracism leveled at people who ask awkward questions acts like a form of censorship. Not many fields of science have dedicated smear sites for scientists. Money talks.
Money definitely talks. It’s no secret that a large driving force behind Al Gore’s push on this issue is the fact that he hopes to cash in on selling “carbon credits” to companies being forced to either scale back production or else look for ways to shift their costs around to maintain present levels.
Let’s face it – the science underlying anthropogenic global warming is shoddy. The Hockey Stick has been thoroughly debunked (yet I’ve still had scientifically-illiterate types try to use it when arguing with me). It’s well-known that the earth has actually been cooling for over a decade. We know that the ground-level temperature data used to generate the “warming trends” that the ecos harp about was taken using temperature sensors placed in extremely unrepresentative and inappropriate places (such as near exhaust ports for heat exchangers and the like). We know that just as much glaciation has been taking place as de-glaciation. We know that the polar bears aren’t going to go extinct because they can’t find ice floes from which to hunt for seals. Anybody who can simply read data knows this.
Yet, supposedly smart people literally spend their lives trying to scare us into running around like chickens with our heads cut off worrying about AGW. Why?
As JoNova shows us, follow the money, baby, follow the money.
Tags: Global Warming, Science
