Why Do We Only Look At Skeptic’s Money?

I would be happy to leave funding sources and related ad hominem attacks out of climate discourse completely, but, given these attacks seem to be an element of, oh say, 99% of all media articles on the topic, why is the scrutiny completely directed at skeptics?  Sure, ExxonMobil has probably spent a couple of million dollars funding skeptics.  But here is an example of $1.3 billion put behind the alarmist position.  And this is just one such example.  Gore just raised a $5 billion fund whose success or failure entirely depends on alarmists winning the political debate.  These are direct incentives powerful people now have to lobby the government for climate "action" of some sort, whether or not it makes sense, just as ADM lobbies Congress for corn ethanol subsidies that have been proven to make no sense environmentally or economically.

7 thoughts on “Why Do We Only Look At Skeptic’s Money?”

  1. it seems to me that the potentially bigger issue in funding is how much of the science itself is funded by groups with a vested interest? how much money is doled out by the IPCC and by government bureaucracies that would rapidly become unnecessary if the AGW hypothesis were disproven?

    obviously, such a group would have a strong self interest (keeping jobs, power, funding) in making sure the issue they are “managing” remains an issue. this has long been an issue in all manner of government. solving problems is bad for civil servant job security. managing problems is great. compensation is not based on outcomes, so…

    does anyone have stats on how much money the IPCC and governments spend on climate science? i would be really interested to see the figures.

  2. Gores climate alarmist money will dry up quicker than the proverbial spit on a hot stove when the climate shifts to a cooler phase. It isn’t a question of who wins the political argument any more. The climate will do that on its own. Those of us who have predicted that there is little to be concerned about (Or taxed for) will be proven right by what actually happens.

    La Nina events, a weakening magnetosphere, orbital variations, and sunspot activity will have the last say I think.

  3. Why do ad homenim attacks get such a bad wrap?

    There are good arguments for ad Hominem, look at realclimate. Sure they might be right about something by pure chance, but does that make anything produced by anyone affiliated with them worth looking at? Their culture and policy taint everything they do and they produce a large amount of bull. Just because they may not always be wrong doesn’t mean they deserve attention.

  4. I’ve never known a government agency or commission to say something like this:

    “After careful review, we have determined that the problem we were commissioned to study is not that big of a problem. No further study is necessary and our commission should be defunded and disbanded.”

  5. Did not Mr. Hanson of NASA, a federal employee, receive a cash donation of $250,00 from the Heinz/Kerry foundation? They had to avoid violating bribery laws by creating a phony front fund. I think they should be the subject of an investigation by the US Attorney but that good-ol’-boys club isn’t interested.

  6. I cannot count the number of times I’ve seen someone lob accusations of ‘industry funding’ at any scientist or study that is at odds with the AGW orthodoxy. Funny, they can’t seem to manage to find any real fault with the study other than that one of the authors may have taken some pittance from a coal company 20 years ago or some such thing. Or, heaven forbid, wrote something for the Cato Institute. I’m almost thinking it needs it’s own category of logical fallacy. What’s the Latin for ‘funded by a think-tank you disagree with’?
    When I finally saw the amount that ExxonMobil doles out to a fairly broad assortment of groups I have to admit that my first though was:
    That’s all?

Comments are closed.