Since 1989 the US government has given nearly $80 billion dollars to the climate change industry.
Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon dioxide emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw billions of dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? What’s amazing is what they haven’t found: empirical evidence.
The BBC says “there is a consensus and thus no need to give equal time to other theories”. Which means they are not weighing up the arguments, they’re just counting papers. This is not journalism. It’s PR. If the IPCC is wrong, if there is a bias, you’re guaranteed not to hear about it from any organisation that thinks a consensus is scientific.
When ExxonMobil pays just $23 million to skeptics the headlines run wild. But when $79 billion is poured into one theory, it doesn’t rate a mention.
Meanwhile, despite the billions poured in, the checks and “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe working against the well funded, highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed devastating errors.
Why are the crucial checks of the science that underlie changes to entire economies left to unpaid bloggers and retired scientists?
Sources: “Climate Money” Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) based on US Government accounts.
TURN THE PAGES (Links will become active as pages are published). You are on the page in the Red Square.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 + 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
This is page 4 of The Skeptics Handbook II. 20 page PDF
UPDATE: Dec 22 – I thought this past post deserved a few minutes in the sun so I’ve made it a “sticky post” for a few hours. I was very pleased with this diagram, but put this post out on a day with five other posts. I think each step above is crucial in the process of creating and maintaining a false crisis.
Hmmmm, good find. It’s a perfect positive feedback cycle.
10
[…] We paid to find a “crisis” « JoNova […]
10
[…] judging the world. Appallingly they will be impoverishing our countries in the process. They have created a false crisis and now demand we must pay them because of it. A simpler and much more ethical solution would be […]
10
Great post – have linked on my site – keep up the good work 🙂
Email from my local constituent Scott Morrison last night “I have decided to put their interests first and will support the referral of the Government’s proposed ETS to a Senate committee for further analysis, to give Australians the opportunity they want to better understand what the costs of the Government’s chosen action will be.”
Lets hope all Mps can think this way.
Labor MPS who are skeptics also need to stand up and be counted!
10
May want to change the attributes for the image in this story to a fixed number rather than 100%, it looks rather odd when stretched across a large monitor.
10
Interesting quote from mr Vladamir Putin on big Govt…
10
[…] Here’s a simple explanation of how it works: […]
10
[…] Since 1989 the US government has given nearly $80 billion dollars to the climate change industry. […]
10
@ Mark Stevens
Thanks – it still hurts my head trying to get my mind around the observation Russia, China (and India) have almost certainly just saved the West from the socialists at Copenhagen – but they are sure to make another run at it next year. At least it will be more in the open where more of us can see them next time.
10
[…] with Gavin Schmidt repeatedly being exposed as another gatekeeper. It seems it all comes down to the love of money and power, with facts being cast to the wind. As they say being green gives you the right to be a […]
10
Yes, like all positive feedback loops they must explode. I look forward to when the media explodes. It won’t be pretty. What happened to the good old days when the media strived to report the truth?
10
Eighty billion. Well, let’s see who makes snarky comments about “being in the pay of Big Oil” now…
10
Jo Nova wrote: “When ExxonMobil pays just $23 million to skeptics the headlines run wild. But when $79 billion is poured into one theory, it doesn’t rate a mention.”
Anybody else remember The Mouse That Roared? 🙂
10
The Swedish TV company SVT has since long a traditional round table debate with each year’s Nobel laureates. This year they also covered a bit of climate research, in reference to the recent Climategate scandal, and scientific honesty. The section starts ca 13.50 into the programme:
http://svtplay.se/v/1823383/nobel_2009/snillen_spekulerar?cb,a1364145,1,f,-1/pb,a1364142,1,f,-1/pl,v,,1823383/sb,p117534,1,f,-1
I don’t know if this web TV service is available abroad (but I think so). The program is often exported to other TV companies, under the title “Science and Man” and may turn up on a local channel of yours. (The Swedish title “Snillen spekulerar” means “Geniuses speculate”.)
–Ahrvid
Ps. Not that while the term “climategate” isn’t mentioned, the scandal is named this in the Swedish subtitles!
10
This article has the entire global warming hoo-haa in a nutshell. It is entirely an artefact of the governmental funding of science.
Once it is accepted that government has the legitimate function to fund science, the scientists themselves will have no measure of their own interest, or of the greater good, than to hitch their wagon to the star of whatever fad takes the political class from time to time.
We already know that 100% governmental control of the means of production can only, must necessarily, lead to arbitrary totalitarian dictatorship, economic chaos, and social collapse.
But what we need to realise is that *every step* closer to that final state must necessarily spread arbitrary abuse of political power and planned economic chaos, of which the global warming episode and the GFC are current examples. It is simply not an option to increase governmental involvement in producing goods and services, and not have these destructive anti-social results.
Those who don’t understand why, owe it themselves and everyone else in society, to understand why: http://mises.org/econcalc.asp ; because it is often those most educated in the technical sciences who are the worst in embracing the utter superstition of omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent government.
10
The money trail will lead you to the criminals
10
The bias of the BBC extends far and wide.
From it’s gushing support of so many 3rd world Tin Pot dictators, terrorist organizations & Marxist Green politics, the BBC has become an Orwellian caricature.
It roams the airwaves like one of the living dead, disseminating terror and lies.
The soul of the BBC was taken over by leftists sometime back in the late 1970’s when Thatcher came to power.
Ever since then, it has become little more than a mouth-piece for the collective.
From my point of view, the leftism is now so entrenched that there is no chance of it ever remedying itself.
The only solution will be to pull the plug.
As an institution, it is nothing more than a shadow of its former self.
Time to drive a stake through its heart & bury it.
Aqua Fyre
10
Media spin, use of children to push emotional buttons, etc.:
Remember “little Gracie”? The six-year old whose letter to Kevin Rudd he quoted from at Copenhagen? Imre Salusinszky reveals the unexpurgated version in The Australian today:
Hot under the collar in kindergarten
10
Merry Christmas & a Happy and Prosperous New Year to you Jo and your family.
Keep up the great work you have much to be proud of.
Scott
10
Thank you, Anne-Kit, for pointing us to Gracie’s letter. Priceless.
10
I’ll second that Merry Christmas Scott #19. The efforts of people like Jo and the the bloggers on this site have been key in keeping this issue alive, and while it’s early days, judging by the people I talk to the AGW theory is starting to wear thin with most of them. There’s still a lot of vested interest to overcome though.
10
http://elfyourself.jibjab.com/view/GRX6esy9BCBh4hAP
sorry I didn;t have time to add Jo’s face, but some climate opponents have bandied together to spread some christmas cheer:)
10
@ Mattb 22
Hey I just watched the linked video, thank you. I hope that you and your loved ones have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I clicked the like button.
@ the people who clicked the dislike button on MattB 22
Come on, its the season to be jolly! I appreciate MattB’s sense of humor. To give the guy a thumbs down for posting a humorous link is beneath the dignity of any decent person. Although I generally disagree with MattB I do respect his right to post his comments. In the end there are three things that last: faith, hope and love. I have “faith” that MattB will see the light, I “hope” we skeptics do not follow the poor example of the criminals at RealClimate and stoop to de facto censorship and my personal beliefs require me to “love” EVERYBODY, especially those who disagree with me or even hate me.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everybody!
10
Very good system/process analysis. We have to go deep in it. Unfortunately this is happening in all continents. Its a plague. Many, many, many money is on the table. Few, many few peoples will gain with the scare (more one…). But, congratulations for your work. Your guide was translated to portugues-brasileiro (pt_br) too. Fine!
JFB
10
[…] Institute do climate skeptics apply for a job at? Answer: None.) We paid to find a crisis, and we got what we paid for. Thousands of skeptics are working pro bono because they are outraged. Retired scientists and […]
10
[…] From JoNova: When ExxonMobil pays just $23 million to skeptics the headlines run wild. But when $79 billion is poured into one theory, it doesn’t rate a mention. (my remark: So if $23 mil discredits the skeptics then it stands to reason that the Alarmists are 3,400 times less credible. ) She, quite reasonably, asks: “Why are the crucial checks of the science that underlie changes to entire economies left to unpaid bloggers and retired scientists?” […]
10