In the last article, we examined what was behind the frantic global warming push on a philosophical, macro level. In short, global warming is a witch’s brew of Malthusian theory conjoined with Fabian socialism, Margaret Sanger and Edward Bernays (the originator of modern advertising and public manipulation). I have demonstrated how global warming is the vehicle whereby the left would like to create a “USSR of the world” – all for our own good, of course. Perhaps former Czech president Vaclav Klaus and leader of the Czech Velvet Revolution which overthrew the communists in his country summarized it best in Blue Planet in Green Shackles: “Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.” Or, as Nancy Pelosi famously stated "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility." No word, of course, to the age old question posed by the Roman satirist Juvenal, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will watch the guards?), or the abuse and corruption that has characterized every socialist utopia from Robespierre to Eric Holder.
However, the global warming trail needs yet further examination, for much like Weston and Devine in C.S. Lewis’ novel Out of the Silent Planet, there is a more prosaic side to the global warming coin. And this, of course, is the literal coin of greed.
Evidence? First, let’s hear from the scientist themselves:
Dr. Harold Lewis, observed, on resigning from the American Physical Society stated after the ClimateGate scam, that he “found fraud on a scale I have never seen” and stated the money flood has become the raison d’etre of much of physics research. He concluded by observing “The global warming scam with the (literally) millions of dollars driving it… has carried the APS before it like a rogue wave.”
Dr. William Gray, the renowned hurricane forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University – considered by many the top hurricane forecaster in the world – put it more baldly “The environmentalists want to push environmental things and people will become more sensitive to the environment if they think the globe is really warming. There are socialists who want to push a leveling of living standards around the globe. There are governments that want to control peoples’ lives more. There are businessmen who want to get into the new renewable energy. They want to make money on this. There’s a whole set of people out there who don’t know much about how the atmosphere ticks but see how they can profit from this global warming hypothesis, and they want to convince the world that this is true.”
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT corroborated this by noting that the US has spent around $70 billion on global warming, and “the last thing anyone in the world would want to do is solve the problem.” Lindzen also noted that “those who are advancing global warming get better grants and get well funded by our federal government compared to us who are skeptical.” Dr. Lindzen added, while speaking that the Heartland International Conference on Climate Change in New York in March, 2009, “I think [there is] one point you should notice as one discusses the science, and that is that global warming alarm -- as far as I can tell -- has always been a political movement, a highly organized one…And although it took me a while to realize this, opposing it has always been an uphill battle," and concluded that most of his colleagues subscribe to global warming either because they fear for their jobs, or find it a way get project funding. Also said Lindzen: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.” (Dr. Lindzen has a lengthy (~1.5 hr) highly academic presentation on why he disagrees with anthropogenic global warming.
But about those beaucoup bucks: Australian Joanne Nova had the temerity to follow the money, and found that trail led to – surprise! – the warmers. Brobdignagian Big Government and its horde of public cash, along with their buddies Big Finance (who, also have a stake in global warming) which utterly dwarfs relatively tiny Big Oil. Nova notes a deep-pocketed Greenpeace searched high and wide for Big Oil money, and found $23 mm paid by Exxon over 10 years, which has stopped. They found nothing more. Moreover, Nova’s article points out that while Big Oil may not prefer emissions to be traded, it’s not the end of the world if they are, as any taxing of Big Oil will just be passed on to the consumers, and past experience shows that even with higher prices, consumers still have to use fuel, so profits will not be impacted.
In contrast to Exxon’s $23 mm, consider the carbon-mongers’ budgets, such as Stanford’s Global Climate and Energy Project for $100mm. Meanwhile, the co-opted government has spent $79 billion on climate initiatives since 1989, and this figure is only the U.S. alone, and also does not include private concerns. Even Australia put out one quick advertising campaign at $13.9 mm recently. And what is England’s BBC, if not one big, publicly funded advertising arm for the warmers?
In sum, Nova notes “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.” Worse, there is no group or government funding designed to check flaws in the warmers’ work, and the very logic of government funding steers the researchers to do what they were mandated to do – look in one direction for warming, as their grant applications ask them to. As Nova states in her article, “It’s possible that honest scientists have dutifully followed their grant applications, always looking for one thing in one direction, and when they have made flawed assumptions or errors, or just exaggerations, no one has pointed it out simply because everyone who could have, had a job doing something else. In the end the auditors who volunteered—like Steve McIntyre and AnthonyWatts—are retired scientists, because they are the only ones who have the time and the expertise to do the hard work.” While there are massive numbers of heavily funded organizations looking for global warming, I have yet to hear of even one “National Institute for Natural Climate Change.”
Need another example?
Mr. Hockey Stick himself, Michael Mann, while at Virginia State Univ. received almost a half million dollars in funding prior to his departure to Penn State. And while warmers Peter Gleick talk about Heartland Inst. receiving $7 million in annual funding (with only a very small fraction coming from corporations having anything to do with the global warming, James Taylor points out, in contrast, :the Natural Resources Defense Council receives close to $100 million in annual funding, Greenpeace receives close to $200 million in annual funding, the World Wildlife Fund receives approximately $600 million in annual funding. Which groups, indeed, are the “well-funded” entities “focused on protecting narrow financial interests?”
But it gets worse. Nova stated that according to the World Bank, carbon trading reached $126 billion in 2008, and PointCarbon at one point estimated $130 billion in 2009. If warmers whine about involvement of “Big Oil,” what about the involvement of Big Finance, who stand to make money when carbon is bought or sold? Could it be that those shouting at skeptics are in the employ of Big Finance? Nova writes “Banks are keen to be seen as good corporate citizens (look, there’s an environmental banker!), but somehow they don’t find the idea of a non-tradable carbon tax as appealing as a trading scheme where financial middlemen can take a cut. (For banks that believe in the carbon crisis, taxes may well “help the planet,” but they don’t pay dividends.)” So, in sum, is seems there are some generally unpaid skeptics who are taking on massive business interests and groups of warmers who have a vested interest to continue getting their grants and trips to exotic locales for meetings (anyone wonder why warmers don’t row there?). No one seems to mention they also have to fight “Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Barclays, Morgan Stanley, and every other financial institution or corporation that stands to profit like the Chicago Climate Exchange (before it imploded from its own poison gas emissions, European Climate Exchange, PointCarbon, IdeaCarbon (and the list goes on… ) as well as against government bureaucracies like the IPCC and multiple departments of Climate Change.” CFTC Commissioner Bart Chilton even stated at one point he could “ see carbon trading being a $2 trillion market… the largest commodity market in the world” while Richard L. Sandor, chairman and chief executive officer of Climate Exchange Plc, who received $1.1 million in grants from the leffist Joyce Foundation to launch the CCX, agreed and predicted trades eventually would total $10 trillion a year – that is, until Cap and Trade blew up – at which point, Mr. Sandor received $98.5 million for his 16.5% stake in the CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange) when it was sold. Not too shabby for a failed enterprise that somebody else financed.
The preceding is just a portion of the “man behind the curtain” Toto has exposed in pulling back the Wizard’s curtain. Next week’s article will show not only is it mere smoke and mirrors behind the global warming curtain, but the wizard is not even wearing any clothes.