"Scientific Consensus" On
Change Driven by Profit and Big Business
The leaking of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's
Climate Research Unit has shined a light on an industry of climate
change alarmism, highlighting the hypocritical claims of corporate
cronyism on behalf of proponents of the anthropological global warming
A common accusation made by AGW theorists, or "the consensus"
as they like to be known, is that dissenting groups are only interested
in the financial kickbacks they can secure from big oil companies.
For example, in 2008, ExxonMobil donated around $7 million, less
then 0.01% of it's annual profits, to a selection of think tanks
and institutes. Among these donations was a combined $125,000
to the National
Center for Policy Analysis and the Heritage
Institute, right of centre public policy groups that have
questioned the "consensus" on climate change.
The NCPA website states: "NCPA scholars believe that while
the causes and consequences of the earth's current warming trend
is still unknown, the cost of actions to substantially reduce
CO2 emissions would be quite high and result in economic decline,
accelerated environmental destruction, and do little or nothing
to prevent global warming regardless of its cause."
Guardian and other left leaning mainstream media outlets have
pounced on Exxon's small donations to such groups, reporting it
as detestable corporate funding of "climate change denial".
However, when it comes to the funding of AGW proponents, the
figures are infinitely greater, many of the sources take their
money directly from our pockets, and yet the Guardian and its
ilk, conveniently, remain completely silent.
The leaked emails from the Hadley centre reveal that (now former)
CRU chief Phil Jones has received 55 endowments since 1990 from
agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO, worth
a total of £13,718,547, or approximately $22.6 million.
$19 million alone came between the years 2000 and 2006.
Massaging the scientific data, hiding a decline in temperatures,
hijacking the peer-review system and blackballing dissenting scientific
opinion does not look good for Jones in the context of such financial
Another document leaked from the CRU, titled potential-funding.doc,
lists sources of potential funding and shows that the scientists
considered pressing "energy agencies" that specifically
deal in new technology to reduce carbon emissions.
Three agencies listed as potential sources of funding are UK
based Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative, and the Energy
Saving Trust. Renewables North West, an American company promoting
the expansion of solar, wind, and geothermal energy, is listed
as a fourth potential benefactor.
Of course, all these potential financial backers have a vested
interest in maintaining the conception that human-induced global
warming is a reality backed by science.
In an article entitled Climategate:
Follow the Money, columnist Bret Stephens at the Wall Street
Journal points out that the funding of climate skeptics is a drop
in the ocean compared to the huge industry that human-driven climate
change science has spawned.
"The European Commission's most recent appropriation for
climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting
funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House
intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400
million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science
Foundation. American states also have a piece of the action, with
Californiaapparently not feeling bankrupt enoughdevoting
$600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists
have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal."
"And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that
HSBC estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls
'green stimulus'largely ethanol and other alternative energy
schemesof the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at
Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely."
Billions of dollars in grants for one research institute or university
does not go unnoticed by the rest, and there is a valid point
to be considered in the notion that this is where the "scientific
consensus" has it's roots.
"Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own."
Al Gore, the first
carbon billionaire, has proven that he is only interested
in solutions to environmental problems that
line his pockets. The industry beneath him depends on anthropological
global warming like the dot com industry depended on the internet
he claims to have invented.
If you follow the money it becomes clear that it is the "consensus"
that is being driven by gargantuan financial backing, not the
skeptics, as climate change alarmists would have everyone believe.