Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 20 Apr '10 17:40
    Thread 129343, p. 5.



    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    $79B just for the US.

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20819

    The Climate Funding Trough; The Canadian Example
    By Dr. Tim Ball Tuesday, March 9, 2010

    Exposure of corrupt climate science and fraudulent claims has completely upended the climate debate. Now the climate skeptics and deniers are those who pushed the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) claim. Falsely accused of receiving oil company money, I know how they used funding to smear people. In reality, almost all the funding came from government and because of the political objective went to block science and promote propaganda. The US Department of Energy (DOE) and other government agencies provided a portion of the approximately $21 million research funding obtained by climate researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

    Joanne Nova provided a detailed analysis of US funding in a study for the Science and Public Policy Institute and put the figure at $79 billion since 1998.

    Now, politicians aware that misuse of tax money angers, scramble to address the issue while avoiding accusations that they don’t care about the environment. They won’t escape those accusations but leadership is about making tough, fair, and logical decisions.

    In a legitimate and necessary action, Prime Minister Harper has stopped funding government agencies used to promote biased and false climate science.

    image
    Source:
    How Canadians Funded False Climate Science

    A Calgary Herald (February 23) article, “Canadian climate scientists fight for renewed research funding,” tells a far from complete story. It claims a petition signed by 1,400 students and researchers demands new funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS), which they say will die otherwise. There’s the usual emotional appeal; “The foundation’s projects at universities across the country, which are seen as key to understanding the remarkable change underway in the climate, are already being dismantled. And young scientists, trained at substantial cost to the taxpayers, have begun leaving the country in search of work.” But there are no remarkable changes in the climate except in the falsified reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and nothing to support the claim of students leaving the country. The article provides no background of how and why the Foundation was created, which is essential to understanding the story.
    Why the Funding Agency Was Established

    Environment Canada set up CFCAS as just one program to control climate research and funding. Gordon McBean was Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) of Environment Canada (EC) in 2000 when $61 million was assigned to CFCAS. He became Chairman of the Foundation in the month he retired from EC and continues in that position today. A further $50 million was given in 2004.

    ...

    Prevention of Further Waste Is Necessary

    Could this be avoided? Absolutely! All you need to understand is why and how the process was set up. Maurice Strong told Elaine Dewar he could not achieve his goal of getting rid of the industrialized nations as a politician, but could get all the money he wanted and not be accountable through the UN. He set up the IPCC and used the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to get access to the weather services in each country. They then diverted funding to the self-proclaimed national emergency of global warming. We must direct funding through agencies already established with filters necessary to eliminate any political bias or influence.

    ...
  2. 20 Apr '10 17:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    (For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf )

    (edit: reformatted to fit your screen.)

    page 1 of the report:

    Summary for Policy Makers

    The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.

    Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.

    Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded. Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

    The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into a question have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?
    Can science survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance?
  3. 20 Apr '10 17:41 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    picture the cartoon on the cover page.

    a handsome, smiling, probably articulate speaker is on a stage marked "IPCC", in front of a group.

    cartoon title: The Real Consensus

    signed: Jo Nova

    a wall poster says: "Eco-Bag-o / Free-Range Plastic Bags / Fed corn and allowed to roam as nature intended".

    another wall poster says "BBQ Earth", with a picture of a flaming Earth.

    cartoon caption: "Hands-up. Who thinks greenhouse gases have no effect, therefore we all need new jobs. Anyone?"
  4. 20 Apr '10 22:23 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    [b](For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf )

    (edit: reformatted to fit your screen.)

    page 1 of the report:

    Summary for Policy Makers

    The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related ...[text shortened]... an unbiased investigation?
    Can science survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance?
    [/b]
    You'd think that during the time when Bush was president and the GOP controlled Congress, that maybe, just maybe, Exxon and other big business interests could have gotten the government their party controlled to spend more money on studies challenging the prevailing global warming theories.

    Six years of total control by the party of big business and such an imbalance of funding was tolerated? - Who dropped the ball?
  5. 21 Apr '10 01:14
    it was tried.

    the NSF NASA et al careerists squeal like little piggies when you attempt to challenge their dogma.
  6. 21 Apr '10 01:15
    and, bush was pre-climategate.
  7. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    21 Apr '10 01:37
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    You'd think that during the time when Bush was president and the GOP controlled Congress, that maybe, just maybe, Exxon and other big business interests could have gotten the government their party controlled to spend more money on studies challenging the prevailing global warming theories.

    Six years of total control by the party of big business and such an imbalance of funding was tolerated? - Who dropped the ball?
    You've been Jacted.

    (Just another conspiracy theory)
  8. 21 Apr '10 11:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    and, bush was pre-climategate.
    Bush's refusal to take part in the Kyoto Protocol discussions occurred back in 2002 - and I remember there being a lot of global warming yammering all throughout the 1990's. So clearly, climategate has been raging for many years.

    As for the "careerists" at the NSF, are you saying that there wasn't some way for the Bush administration or the GOP-controlled Congress to find a way to steer a decent amount of funding to skeptical scientists? I'm sure those skeptics could have given themselves a politically correct name like Scientists to Study Climate Change and gotten loads of funding before anyone realized what they were actually studying.

    Or maybe someone in Congress could have funded their efforts with one of those earmarks slipped into the middle of a 3000 page bill at the last second. This seems to work for every other pig at the trough.

    So clearly the ball was dropped. The only question is by whom?
  9. 21 Apr '10 15:54
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    Bush's refusal to take part in the Kyoto Protocol discussions occurred back in 2002 - and I remember there being a lot of global warming yammering all throughout the 1990's. So clearly, climategate has been raging for many years.

    As for the "careerists" at the NSF, are you saying that there wasn't some way for the Bush administration or the GOP-contro ...[text shortened]... ther pig at the trough.

    So clearly the ball was dropped. The only question is by whom?
    CLIMATEGATE .... the brouhaha over the leaked emails in NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND NINE. Bush left office in JANUARY TWO THOUSAND NINE.

    re the careerists, maybe you can find some if that "decent amount of funding".
  10. 21 Apr '10 16:14
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    CLIMATEGATE .... the brouhaha over the leaked emails in NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND NINE. Bush left office in JANUARY TWO THOUSAND NINE.

    re the careerists, maybe you can find some if that "decent amount of funding".
    I guess we had a mix-up on what the term Climategate was referring to - I was thinking about the overall debate on the climate change issue and not just that one incident.

    Nevertheless - you were referring to the $79Bill spent on "research promoting AGW" since 1998, vs the relative tiny amount of funding for "research challenging AGW". That is what I'm referring to. Surely during the time when Bush and the GOP was in office, they could've found a way to generously fund studies seeking to challenge the prevailing views. Yes, it might have been controversial to do this, but since when was Bush one to back away from a controversy?
  11. 21 Apr '10 16:19
    would you try to take a bone from a snarling dog?

    sometimes there's just no percentage in it.
  12. 21 Apr '10 16:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    would you try to take a bone from a snarling dog?

    sometimes there's just no percentage in it.
    If taking that bone from said dog would save your company and your industry untold billions of dollars in preventing the passage of new taxes and regulations, you will put on the protective gear and do battle with the wretched canine.

    You don't become a successful big business if you are squeamish about such things.
  13. 21 Apr '10 16:38
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    If taking that bone from said dog would save your company and your industry untold billions of dollars in preventing the passage of new taxes and regulations, you will put on the protective gear and do battle with the wretched canine.

    You don't become a successful big business if you are squeamish about such things.
    you haven't been paying attention. the oil companies are on the green bandwagon.

    (although it may only be lip service; like the agreements forced on companies by Jesse Jackson ( http://www.skeptictank.org/gen4/gen02379.htm )).

    and until recently, the treatment of anyone on the other side of the climate fence was much worse, especially of scientists.
  14. 21 Apr '10 16:56
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    you haven't been paying attention. the oil companies are on the green bandwagon.

    (although it may only be lip service; like the agreements forced on companies by Jesse Jackson ( http://www.skeptictank.org/gen4/gen02379.htm )).

    and until recently, the treatment of anyone on the other side of the climate fence was much worse, especially of scientists.
    The oil companies are on a suicidal bandwagon? Why would that be?
  15. 21 Apr '10 17:45 / 1 edit
    what's suicidal about it? do you know the figures they are bandying about re carbon trading?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_trading#Business_reaction

    Business reaction

    With the creation of a market for mandatory trading of carbon dioxide emissions within the Kyoto Protocol, the London financial marketplace has established itself as the center of the carbon finance market, and is expected to have grown into a market valued at $60 billion in 2007.[4][not in citation given] The voluntary offset market, by comparison, is projected to grow to about $4bn by 2010.[5]

    Twenty three multinational corporations came together in the G8 Climate Change Roundtable, a business group formed at the January 2005 World Economic Forum. The group included Ford, Toyota, British Airways, BP and Unilever. On 9 June 2005 the Group published a statement stating that there was a need to act on climate change and stressing the importance of market-based solutions. It called on governments to establish "clear, transparent, and consistent price signals" through "creation of a long-term policy framework" that would include all major producers of greenhouse gases.[6] By December 2007 this had grown to encompass 150 global businesses.[7]

    Business in the UK have come out strongly in support of emissions trading as a key tool to mitigate climate change, supported by Green NGOs.[8]