Who is really polluting the climate change debate?
I have not met too many conservatives who do not want clean water, clean air, or who want the world to end in 2012! Oh, wait! We are past that already. Well, let’s just say twelve years from now! I get a real kick out of these climate alarmists running around warning us that if we don’t give them all our money, the world will end in twelve years, while at the same time, they are planning long-term fundamental changes to our country.
I mean, if we’re all going to die, what’s the point …
While we can all certainly agree we should be good stewards of our planet, we must take a scientific-based approach to ensure its longevity. However, Congress has proven time and time again that they are great at ignoring real science and incredibly incompetent when it comes to making smart decisions. Or, at least decisions not based on direct influence from wealthy mega-donors.
You can find a study to back any position!
For example, in the 1960s, industry-funded research was designed to downplay the risks of sugar while highlighting the hazards of fat. The study was requested by an industry group called “the Sugar Research Foundation” who needed evidence to refute concerns about sugar’s role in heart disease.
The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did precisely that. The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding. It suggested there were significant problems with all the studies that implicated sugar. It concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease.
So, what does that have to do with climate change research?
Not a damn thing! But it does show you that, with enough money, you can get whatever research results you want. Even from some “highly respected” sources.
The fact is that an overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. While it is true that the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government and left-wing foundation funding only go toward research that advances the global warming regulatory agenda. What we actually have is a pre-determined public-policy outcome buying research to support its program. The resulting government and left-wing foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity than the actual risk of global warming is to our planet.
With the fate of the U.S. economy, and perhaps the planet at stake, you would think Americans would want the actual facts!
But some people in the government and the media work very hard to keep the facts from getting in the way of good brainwashing!
Back in 2015, the New York Times and the Boston Globe pointed to documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace, and attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon by suggesting that he hid $1.2 million in research funding contributions from “fossil fuel companies.” Their stores were part of an ongoing campaign by Greenpeace and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda.
However, by choosing to not be impartial watchdogs, and closely allying themselves with radical activist groups, those reporters fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming research funding.
The Smithsonian Institute, which employs Dr. Soon, told the Times it appeared the scientist had inadvertently violated disclosure standards, and they said they would look into the matter.
Soon is a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his defense.
“It is a despicable, reprehensible attack on a man of great personal integrity,” says Myron Ebell, the director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who questioned why media organizations were singling out Soon over research funding.
In fact, it is almost impossible for some of the world’s top climate scientists such as Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, and MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen to get funding for their work. This is because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment.
It is interesting to point out here that, back in the 1950s, a study by MIT showed that when the government funds research through grants, it typically receives the results it wants. Amazing, isn’t it! It shocked the nation back then. I believe it has only gotten worse today.
Contrast this treatment with that of Michael Mann
Mann is the director of Pennsylvania State’s Earth System Science Center. He was also at the center of the 2009 Climate-gate scandal. This occurred when uncovered e-mails between climatologists revealed they were discussing how to skew scientific evidence to support their claims as well as how to blackball experts who don’t agree with them.
Mann is a prime example of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from government agencies. The federal government, which by the way, will gain massive regulatory power if their climate legislation is passed, has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989. This number is provided by the Science and Public Policy Institute. This amount dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have historically funded both sides of the debate.
According to a study by The American Spectator, Michael Mann received some $6 million, mostly in government grants, including $500,000 in federal stimulus money WHILE he was being investigated for his Climate-gate e-mails.
So where is the “free and balanced” press?
I used to cringe at the statement that the mass media has become the enemy of the American people. Now I am in agreement. They more I see, the more I believe many in the media are directly supporting a left-wing takeover of this country.
Despite claims that they are watchdogs of the establishment, media outlets such as The Times have ignored the government’s heavy-handed role in directing climate change research. And they have ignored millions in contributions from left-wing foundations; funding that, like government grants, seek to tip the scales to one side of the debate.
Media outlets have also been one-sided in their reporting on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The NY Times trumpeted Greenpeace’s FOIA requests revealing Soon’s benefactors. Yet, they have ignored the government’s refusal of FOIA filings by the Competitive Enterprise Institute requesting funding source disclosures of external income of NASA scientist James Hansen, a key ally of Al Gore.
The fact that we have experienced a lack of “global warming” for over a decade and have actually experienced dangerous and record-breaking low temperatures combined with scandals such as Climate-gate are strong evidence that the establishment has oversold a warming crisis in an effort to gain power and control.
Failure of the media to cover both sides of the debate fairly while attempting to shut up their critics shows either a clear disregard or ignorance of the real threat to science.