Hmmm,
It's All An Industry Conspiracy - Funding by Industry Obviously is Behind any Opposition to Global Warming
Dan, that really wasn't science but at least it was your argument to some extent.
So Dr Singer is paid by Industry as is Prof. Carter. I'm darn sure neither of these climate experts is funded by industry. But I'm also sure that CSIRO is funded by industry. They are doing a study on beer currently, funded by one of the world's biggest brewers plus our government. I thought you liked CSIRO. So if they are funded by industry does that mean they are necessarily wrong?
Actually, if I was a power station company, I'd be desperate to have any voice heard above the incredible deluge of pro global warming articles and, yes, I'd very probably support anyone that had some credentials and really didn't go along with the line that global warming is all to do with CO2. You know why? Because, if I don't, I could find myself saddled with carbon credits or other problems that won't cost me a cent but may harm my customers greatly and damage my country. If I was an oil company and really wanted to gouge the maximum profits possible, I'd welcome carbon credits and anything that made my product dearer. Doesn't matter why the product is dearer, the actual dollar amount of profit the businesses in it retain grows accordingly.
So why would a power station company care about arguing against global warming? They are not going to pay, after all. No way is the US Congress going to pass a bill that makes a power station responsible for CO2 but not allow them to pass the extra costs onto consumers. Funnily enough, the people that run these companies live in the communities they serve. They often know just what damage extra power costs will have on their customers. Which businesses will close up shop and move their manufacturing to India or China (neither of whom have to do a darn thing under Kyoto and both of which are going to surpass the US in the not too distant future in the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere).
So, while this is not strictly a science question at all, the "smoking gun" of industry funding those that are less than enamoured about global warming as a fact and all due to CO2 does not necessarily mean those they fund are unethical. Actually, if it did, then all the pro global warming advocates would likewise be just as unethical, considering where their funding comes from. They need global warming to be a fact for funding to occur. Bias flows from that simple fact.
I know nothing of Dr Michaels but I can guarantee if he has some sort of research that suggests global warming is not to do with CO2 or is less than certain, that he will not get funding through pretty much any institution (even if that funding ultimately comes from the US government). So just where do you suggest he get his funding?
This is an absurd argument to make. Nah. Nah. Nah. We're right. You're wrong. And not only that we are grossly morally superior because you must be crooked or cracked or in cahoots with big bad industry. Just how stupid does this really sound when not worded in the way that it is some big conspiracy theory?
What galls me about this type of attack is it is so one sided. When Greenpeace pulled their little stunt with the glacier that was one of six emptying into a lake, five expanding and one retreating, was it a major news item? Huh! It wasn?t reported in most papers. Environmental groups don?t even hide the fact that they support any research that demonstrates global warming as a fact or man made, yet no one seems to think that this may lead to bias.
The US government has sunk $40 billion into global warming. And you say it?s about money. You are darned right a lot of it is about money. But all the money is going to those that are willing to argue global warming is a looming disaster. The fact that President Bush doesn?t like the global warming arguments does not stop this very one sided allocation of funds. The funds are for ?research?. They must be allocated to institutions, government agencies and the like. No matter the opinion of President Bush, it is these institutions and government agencies that decided where the funds go then. But how did it get to be a multi-billion a year handout? Because global warming became a big issue, that?s how. And what is the business of a government agency or institution, the enhancement of that agency or institution, of course. No good funding research that says, ?No need to do all this research because global warming isn?t all that likely?. That won?t increase your budget the next year. In fact, produce too many reports that are not hugely pro global warming and you may even lose funding. There are exceptions.
NASA has had its funding cut. But NASA seems to have forgotten why it was created in the first place. It is a space agency with a proportion of its work focused inward where space research can benefit our planet. It is the NASA data that shows by far the greatest warming of the planet and massively larger acceleration than any other interpretation of data done by any other institution. NASA seems to have been getting into research areas that were purely earth bound and areas that are already very healthily funded by the US or other governments. The Arctic sea ice is a good example of this. There is a US agency set up to monitor and report on Arctic ice. Why has NASA to do it too? No matter how much the argument is supported by the press or world opinion, this does not protect an agency from funding cuts where they push way too far or start moving into pure politics. Of course, I?m sure NASA and a number of people who support them will disagree with everything I?ve said here. That?s fine. The point concerning all the other institutions remains just as valid.
My agreed funding, since withdrawn, was for $130,000 US, out of an annual budget in the several hundred million region. I was told quite clearly that I was the only person receiving any funding from the particular institute that was not avidly pro global warming. So the funding, really from the US Government, spilt was about a tenth of one percent for research that was not very pro global warming. Another group offered to assist me in replacing that funding. They are paid in part by oil companies. I refused. Do you know why? Not because I thought the oil company or even the group that offered the funding would interfere with my research (even though the institute did precisely that and asked me to alter my findings on a particular piece of research ? hence the funding withdrawal). The funding was offered no strings attached and I really did believe that. But it would have had absolutely no legitimacy at all if it was shown to be funded by an oil company. That is the current political reality so I have no funding at all and my access to research is now somewhat diminished, although not completely. It seems that there are a fair amount of people out there that do not like the current situation, regardless of their personal beliefs in global warming.
So what does this have to do with the science of climate change? Not one thing, providing research can be done without any funding at all.
I really liked the use of the word ?some? in ?some sceptical scientists?. You even spelt it in Australian English for me, the sceptical, not the some. The point to the whole issue of industry funding is to tar anyone who disagrees with any aspect of global warming as a fact, as somewhat unsavoury. They don?t actually say they are crooks but they certainly don?t paint the people in a good light. The letter was ?leaked?. I actually understand that funding of this nature must be reported and so is on public record but the Washington Post wanted this to sound like Dr Michaels is doing something wrong, by implication. Actually, the letter doesn?t even sound all that unreasonable. There are two sides to an argument. Right now one side isn?t getting any hearing at all. We think one side includes ?alarmists?. Someone should stand up for them and we are willing to do so. Just how deceiptful and big bad industry trying to create a "cover up" does this really sound?
It is only if you wish there to be only one side to the argument, that this type of funding seems to be so unsavoury. If Dr Michaels? research is bad then it will be rubbished mercilessly, so why the concern? If he makes some valid points, aren?t they worth hearing?
It would seem that scientific scepticism is the basis of good science, unless such scepticism is aimed at issues such as global warming, then it is just some crank or poor deluded scientist going against the huge weight of evidence.
As for your news article about attacks on ?scientists? who stand up all alone in their isolated voices of reason in support of global warming, first of all, there seems to be no evidence to support this at all. What scientist has actually lost funding or their job because they were pro global warming?
And the attacks that are mentioned seem to be ?attacks? because other scientists, generally specialists in the area under discussion, do not agree with the findings and dispute them. This is then called an ?attack?. Isn?t that how science is meant to work?
I could go on but this is already a very long post. I do have some knowledge of why Mr Santer came under criticism and it seemed well deserved. Michael Mann, had he been in any other discipline, would have been in big trouble. His research has been roundly criticised because it deserved to be. You do not use other?s research to prove a particular view but only select the research that agrees with the results you want. Wow! So actually finding that someone ?cooked the books? on their research, is somehow this ?extensive network? hell bent on bring down the IPCC.
Dan, if you have read this far, which aside from getting a word count, I doubt that you will, a news article suggesting a conspiracy where it seems one side has all the money - a news article sponsored by Shell by the way - is not quite the same as arguing the science. I?ll save you the trouble. There are 1775 words and 8101 characters.
Regards
Richard
