Global Warming: Policy-Driven Deception

[Kidlicious]

No global warming since 1995 according to ex-scientist and CRU Data-Manipulator-in-Chief Phil Jones.

If he can accept that then surely the duped alarmists should be able to.

I'm gonna go with what the insurance industry has to say about it.

[HalfLotus]

Catastrophist advocates like to paint a picture of poor, innocent scientists vs. the a big bad energy cabal which pours more money into skepticism, but it just isn't so. AGW advocacy has truckloads of cash behind it.

The Climate Industry Wall of Money

The big-money side of this debate has fostered a myth that sceptics write what they write because they are funded by oil profits. They say, follow the money? So I did and it's chilling. Greens and environmentalists need to be aware each time they smear with an ad hominem attack they are unwittingly helping giant finance houses.

...

Money for the Climate Industry: The US government spent $79 billion on climate research and technology since 1989 - to be sure, this funding paid for things like satellites and studies, but it's 3,500 times as much as anything offered to sceptics. It buys a bandwagon of support, a repetitive rain of press releases, and includes PR departments of institutions like NOAA, NASA, the Climate Change Science Program and the Climate Change Technology Program...

For direct PR comparisons though, just look at "Think Climate Think Change": the Australian Government put $13.9 million into just one quick advertising campaign. There is no question that there are vastly more financial rewards for people who promote a carbon-made catastrophe than for those who point out the flaws in the theory.

...

Money for the Finance Houses: What the US Government has paid to one side of the scientific process pales in comparison with carbon trading. According to the World Bank, turnover of carbon trading reached $126 billion in 2008. PointCarbon estimates trading in 2009 was about $130 billion.
...

Commissioner Bart Chilton, head of the energy and environmental markets advisory committee of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), has predicted that within five years a carbon market would dwarf any of the markets his agency currently regulates: "I can see carbon trading being a $2 trillion market." "The largest commodity market in the world." He ought to know.

It promises to be larger than the markets for coal, oil, gold, wheat, copper or uranium. Just soak in that thought for a moment. Larger than oil.

Richard L. Sandor, chairman and chief executive officer of Climate Exchange Plc, agrees and predicts trades eventually will total $10 trillion a year." That's 10 thousand billion dollars.

If we follow the big money, it leads to the doorstep of catastrophists, not to skeptics.

And don't forget the biggest of the big: IMF is looking to create an enormous slush fund to fund global government administration of industrial society in the name of fighting this hypotehtical future catastrophe.

Booga, booga! Give us your money!

Suckers.

[Dauphin]

Why do you hate capitalism? Why do you want to destroy a $10 trillion dollar market before it has a chance to grow? That money could generate millions of jobs and you discount it out of a romantic and nostalgic notion of protecting a defenceless and endangered oil market.

[ricketyclik]

Value of fossil fuel industry directly: US$1 trillion per year. How much in fossil fuel intensive industries, like mining, fertilizers, etc?

Nah, those guys are just small fry That AU$13.9 M must sure have put the wind up their sales!

Oh, and HL, Kid accused you of being a tool, not a master.

[HalfLotus]

I'm not suggesting there aren't powerful interests opposed to global warming policy, but the 'David v Goliath' scenario presented by catastrophists is wildly inaccurate.

And I know Dauphin is mostly trolling, but the AGW industry isn't capitalism, it's a government sponsored enterprise. See 'green' government job creation, 'green' tax cuts, etc.

Governments are into this in a big way, and especially the global entities like UNEP, IMF, World Bank, etc. It's a monster.

But the booga, booga always works, so why not rob the public blind over and over? I probably would.

[Theben]

Steve McIntyre broke the hockey stick - you need to pick up a copy of A W Montford's "Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science" rather than keeping your head in the sand.

Anyone using the word "Climategate" with a straight face is a few brain cells short of a twinkie.

[Spinko]

Anyone using the word "Climategate" with a straight face is a few brain cells short of a twinkie.

I'd prefer to discuss the science rather than hurl insults, can you manage that?

Climategate is how the scandal of scientists manipulating data and the peer review process is best known.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I'm gonna go with what the insurance industry has to say about it.

This is a money quote for health care.

[DaShi]

I agree. Of course scientists will be biased toward science. We just can't trust them.

[HalfLotus]

Scientists are people too.

They are not immune to groupthink, to the political pressures put upon them by AGW advocates, or to the incentives that come with AGW endorsement in the form of very large research grants.

[ricketyclik]

"Climategate" has been thoroughly discredited as a scandal. Read about it in independent sources, instead of sceptic sites/publications.

[Spinko]

"Climategate" has been thoroughly discredited as a scandal. Read about it in independent sources, instead of sceptic sites/publications.

So the lack of correlation between temperature and the proxies that wiped out the MWP doesn't matter.

The collusion to block dissenting but otherwise excellent papers from the peer review process never happened.

The evasion of legitimate Freedom of Information requests is just a trick that all scientists do too.

Are you trolling?

[ricketyclik]

So the lack of correlation between temperature and the proxies that wiped out the MWP doesn't matter.

"MWP"? Cite source as well please, because I don't know what you're talking about there.

The collusion to block dissenting but otherwise excellent papers from the peer review process never happened.

As above, cite source please.

The evasion of legitimate Freedom of Information requests is just a trick that all scientists do too.

My understanding of that occurrence is that the outfit was being bombarded with FOI requests, to the point where they believed (and I have no reason not to believe them) that it was being done deliberately to harass them. That being said, I've worked in institutions dealing with topical matters and we found that we had to dedicate staff and systems to FOI requests, and those guys should have done that too. Live and learn.

Are you trolling?

Not at all. The media coverage I have read of "Climategate" has dismissed it as extremists who are picking at straws, each and every one of which has been satisfactorily rebuffed.

[Spinko]

"MWP"? Cite source as well please, because I don't know what you're talking about there.




As above, cite source please.




My understanding of that occurrence is that the outfit was being bombarded with FOI requests, to the point where they believed (and I have no reason not to believe them) that it was being done deliberately to harass them. That being said, I've worked in institutions dealing with topical matters and we found that we had to dedicate staff and systems to FOI requests, and those guys should have done that too. Live and learn.




Not at all. The media coverage I have read of "Climategate" has dismissed it as extremists who are picking at straws, each and every one of which has been satisfactorily rebuffed.

The MWP was wiped out by proxies that do not match our thermometer record - google the Divergence Problem.

The source for the manipulation of the peer review process are the Climategate emails. www.eastangliaemails.com

The FoI requests were necessary because the of the unscientific behaviour of the CRU, who refused to release data they had used to support their position.

That says more about the media you read rather than the Climategate scandal. There are several investigations into the scientists implicated in the emails, and the IPCC has now announced that its whole report needs an independent assessment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You mean he follows the media that is interested in what is really going on rather than the media that hysterically goes crazy over any slight thing as long as it can cast any doubt on its political enemies?