The Money Trail The big money of climate science highlighted by Climategate and Copenhagen
|
11 December 2009
Many point to skeptics of the manmade climate change theory and presume they are funded by “big oil” interests and think that should disqualify their arguments. The fact is that there is big money on both sides of the debate coming from oil and energy companies, ‘green’ companies, governments and many other sources. It is big business for all involved no matter which side of the debate they are on.
Money, whether for personal gain or to fund research, can be a big motivator and history has proven the dollar can also corrupt and make people do things they would not normally do. Scientists have seen a veritable boon in funding related to climate change.
Did that affect their judgment and impartiality? Many would say they have a vested interest in furthering the hysteria.
The Climategate email scandal has shed a bit of light on the funding received by climate scientists and it is clear there is a great deal of money involved. One document in the archive highlights the funding for one of the central figures in the event, Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
Since 1990, Jones has received $22 million in grant funding. Of that, $19 million was just in the period from 2000 to 2006 – nearly $3 million per year. Most of the grants came from government agencies including the U.S. Department of Energy and the European Union. Jones has been forced to step down temporarily while an investigation is conducted into his actions.
Michael Mann of Penn State University, another central figure in Climategate, benefited from a great deal of grant money as well. He drew in $5.6 million in grants this decade, most of it from the U.S. taxpayer through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Much like with Jones’ funding, Mann has benefitted mostly in the last five years. He is as well being investigated by his employer.
The increase in funding in recent years certainly coincides with the increased attention that has been focused on the purported threat of anthropogenic global warming – the greater the threat, the greater the funding. If there is no danger from manmade climate change, there is no funding.
According to the Wall Street Journal, governments are pouring billions of dollars into climate science. The European Commission, not including individual nations’ expenditures, will appropriate $3 billion. NASA will be the beneficiary of $1.3 billion, NOAA will bag $400 million, and the National Science Foundation gets $300 million.
This of course does not dissuade many from throwing accusations at dissenting scientists that they and their research is corrupted by “big oil” funding. However, unlike their counterparts we discuss above, many highly regarded scientists that disagree with the manmade climate change theory receive little or no money from those with vested interests.
Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT is a Professor of Meteorology who questions the models on which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) bases its science. Lindzen has accepted $10,000 from traditional energy sources - 20 years ago. Dr. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, disagrees with the anthropogenic global warming theory and has been accused of taking money from petroleum interests. He did indeed. All of $10,000.
Perhaps the best example of an impartial scientist with no ties to interests on either side of the debate is Dr. John Christy, an atmospheric scientist for the University of Alabama and a lead author of the 2001 IPCC report. Christy brings to the table an impeccable resume but was a frequent target of attack from the Climategate scientists because he challenged their conclusions and believes other factors besides man play a role in the warming climate. Christy has never accepted any money from the fossil fuel industry.
However, the very same climate scientists who would accuse a colleague of being a “shill for big oil” didn’t seem to mind if they received money themselves from the same sources. Extensive discussion in the leaked messages shows they solicited Shell Oil, British Petroleum and Esso UK (Exxon) for funding.
Lastly, the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen that started Monday is an example of the money that is on the table for battling the purported threat of climate change. 15,000 delegates, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders will have descended on the event by the time it ends next week. Scores of private jets flew to the city and limousines were in such short supply, they were brought in from neighboring countries.
One only has to look at all of the events taking place to see that the science is hardly the main event. From star studded dinners and music concerts to fashion shows it is a circus like environment with climate science as an afterthought.
What is the cost for the summit? According to Britain’s TaxPayers’ Alliance, a conservative estimate is an astounding $215 million. That includes the Danish government’s budget and the cost of participating governments to send 15,000 delegates but it does not include the cost of literally hundreds of “side-events” and exhibits.
Adding injury to the very planet which they seek to save, organizers say a total of 36,000 tons of carbon dioxide will be emitted for the event and to get the delegates to and from their home countries. The UK Telegraph reported that is “equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.” Middlesbrough has a population of over 142,000 people.
Big money is indeed part of the climate change debate but it isn’t held by one side over another and many, like those in Copenhagen and the Climategate scientists, stand to benefit greatly from billions of dollars being poured into the system.
Comments
RSS feed for comments to this post