Massive climate funding exposed

Climate Money

The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – Trillions to come

Climate Money, Funding for climate research, graph, US government, dollars.

For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money. Who audits the IPCC?

The Summary

The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, 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 one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

Read the Full Report at the Science and Public Policy Institute.

There doesn’t necessarily need to be a conspiracy. It doesn’t require any centrally coordinated deceit or covert instructions to operate. Instead it’s the lack of funding for the alternatives that leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction”.

Billions in the Name of “Climate”

In total, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies. These are actual dollars, obtained from government reports, and not adjusted for inflation. It does not include funding from other governments. The real total can only grow.

In 1989, the first specific US climate-related agency was created with an annual budget of $134 million. Today in various forms the funding has leapt to over $7,000 million per annum, around 50 fold higher. Tax concessions add to this. (See below for details and sources.)

..after spending $30 billion on pure science research no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence…

This tally is climbing precipitously. With enormous tax breaks and rescue funds now in play, it’s difficult to know just how far over the $7 billion mark the final total will stand for fiscal year 2009. For example, additional funding for carbon sequestration experiments alone amounted to $3.4 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (not included in the $7 billion total above).

The most telling point is that after spending $30 billion on pure science research no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on the global climate.

If carbon is a minor player in the global climate as the lack of evidence suggests, the
“Climate Change Science Program” (CCSP), “Climate Change Technology Program” (CCTP), and some of the green incentives and tax breaks would have less, little, or no reason to exist. While forecasting the weather and climate is critical, and there are other good reasons to develop alternative energy sources—no one can argue that the thousands of players who received these billions of dollars have any real incentive to “announce” the discovery of the insignificance of carbon’s role.

Click on the graph for a larger image.

…

“Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion 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.)”

By setting up trading networks, tax concessions, and international bureaucracies before the evidence was in, have we ensured that our understanding of the role of carbon in climate science would be sped up, but that our knowledge of every other aspect of climate science would be slowed down to an equal and opposite extent?

Monopolistic funding creates a ratchet effect where pro-AGW findings are reported and repeated, while anti-AGW results lie unstudied and ignored.

Monopolistic funding creates a ratchet effect where even the most insignificant pro-AGW findings are reported, repeated, trumpeted and asserted, while any anti-AGW results lie unstudied, ignored and delayed. Auditing AGW research is so underfunded that for the most part it is left to unpaid bloggers who collect donations from concerned citizens online. These auditors, often retired scientists, are providing a valuable free service to society, and yet, in return they are attacked, abused, and insulted.

The truth will come out in the end, but how much damage will accrue while we wait for volunteers to audit the claims of the financially well-fed?

The stealthy mass entry of bankers and traders into the background of the scientific “debate” poses grave threats to the scientific process. The promise of “trillions of dollars” on commodity markets—with all of that potential money hinging on finding that human emissions of carbon dioxide have a significant role in the climate—surely acts like blanket of mud over open dispassionate analysis.

All of this means we must be extra diligent in only focusing on just the evidence, the science, the empirical data. Illogic and unreason cloud a debate already loaded with bias. When there are so many incentives encouraging unclarity and overcomplexity, the simple truths need help to rise to the top. But who funds the counter-PR campaign—now that even Exxon has been howled out of the theater of science. There is hardly any money promoting Natural Causes of Climate Change, while billions upon trillions promote Unnatural Forces.

In this scientific debate, one side is gagged while the other side has a government-funded media campaign.

The bottom line

Even if monopolistic funding has affected science, the total amount of money paid to each side won’t tell us whether The Planet’s climate is warming or whether that warming is due to carbon-dioxide. The point of this report is to show how the process of science can be distorted (like any human endeavor) by a massive one-sided input of money. What use would money be, if it didn’t have some impact?

The massive amounts of money involved only makes it more imperative that we look hard at the empirical evidence.

by Joanne Nova
Science and Public Policy Institute

U.S. Government Funding for Climate Change Related Activities 1989-2009

(Millions of Dollars)

.	Fiscal Year	.	Climate Science	.	Climate Technology	.	Foreign Assistance	.	Tax Breaks	.	Annual Total
	1989		134								$134
	1990		659								$659
	1991		954								$954
	1992		1,110								$1,110
	1993		1,326		845		201				$2,372
	1994		1,444		1,038		186				$2,668
	1995		1,760		1,283		228				$3,271
	1996		1,654		1,106		192				$2,952
	1997		1,656		1,056		164				$2,876
	1998		1,677		1,251		186				$3,114
	1999		1,657		1,694		325				$3,676
	2000		1,687		1,793		177				$3,657
	2001		1,728		1,675		218				$3,621
	2002		1,667		1,637		224				$3,528
	2003		1,766		2,533		270		580		$4,569
	2004		1,975		2,870		252		500		$5,097
	2005		1,865		2,808		234		369		$4,907
	2006		1,691		2,789		249		1160		$4,729
	2007		1,825		3,441		188		1730		$5,454
	2008		1,832		3,917		212	*	1420	*	$5,961
	2009		2,441	*	4,400	*	579	*	1160	*	$7,420

	TOTAL		$32,508	+	$36,136	+	$3,506	+	$6,919	=	$79,069
*Estimate or Request.………..Annual Spending totals (right hand col) do not include Tax breaks.

References:

Climate Change Science Program, Annual Report to Congress: Our Changing Planet http://downloads.climatescience.gov/ocp/ocp2009/ocpfy2009-8.pdf
Analytical Perspectives Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/spec.pdf
1993-2005 GAO, Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should be Clearer and More Complete http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05461.pdf Appendix II page 34.
OMB, Fiscal Year 2008. Report to Congress on Federal Climate Change Expenditures, Table 8. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/fy08_climate_change.pdf
Atmospheric Sciences and Climate Change Programs in the FY 2009 Budget, p 1. AAAS. http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09pch15.pdf

Acknowledgements: Thanks to Donald Rokkan and to Brad Jensen for editing help and suggestions. Any errors left are all mine, but you both helped improve this report.

The full report is 4400 word document so I will post the separate major themes over the next week.

Climate Money: PARTS 1- 4.

1. Climate Money Massive Funding Exposed. (You are on this page).

2. How auditing of the Climate Industry is mostly left to volunteers.

3. How the monopolistic funding ratchet slows scientific progress.

4. Why blaming Exxon is a smoke screen to disguise the real vested interests.

UPDATED 2024: Sadly the original links to SPPI no longer work, so I have posted the full PDF here.

8.6 out of 10 based on 35 ratings

Phillip Bratby

July 23, 2009 at 5:52 am

Climate change (Combating AGW) is the world’s biggest industry. Here in the UK it is endemic in government, the civil service, NGOs, charities, the Media, everywhere. And yet it is all based on zero evidence.

15 4

Paul Biggs

July 23, 2009 at 6:01 am

The funding graph looks to have a bit of a hockey stick shape!

10 3

Brian G Valentine

July 23, 2009 at 6:08 am

Do you expect anyone receiving any of the funding discussed above to come back and report “no climate change or ill effects observed”?

Thirty years ago the funding for “climate” research was about 10M $USD, all together from the Federal government.

The people receiving that money were experts in atmosphere, ocean, geology, etc. There was no recognised field as “climatology” at the time.

These investigators undertook long term and careful studies, and retired into obscurity. They were unknown outside their specialty.

Then along came IPCC and the Federal government suddenly became the patron of a Talent Show, wherein glamourous new investigators fought over funds set out to show that “humans” were “altering” (read: “destroying”) the Climate and the Planet.

Enought to make one sick, but unfortunately guided by fashionable Leftist politics – and thereby, not policed by typical University boards set up to guide meaningful research or oversee funded activities

8 3

July 23, 2009 at 6:19 am

University failure to oversee any of this “research,” by the way, is the main reason this has “gotten out of control,” in American English.

They are the culprits behind the circus chicanery this has become.

7 4

Derek Tipp

July 23, 2009 at 6:31 am

Philip Bratby is quite right. There is a complete disconnect between the views of those in authority and the public. The “official view” is the opposite of the public view is what I have found. Although the public are not as a whole buying the global warming theory, they are “resigned” to the policy of the government as long as they are not aware of the full cost of it. As long as the costs are applied stealthily they will probably get away with it, even though nearly everyone knows it will make no difference to the climate. Amazing, but true!

9 2

Rob Yallop

July 23, 2009 at 6:41 am

Mortgage derivatives were blamed for kicking off the current global recession (although in reality it’s a lot more complex than that), what odds of the next global recession results from a catastrophic failure of the carbon market (that’s if carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes haven’t already ruined the worlds’ economies)?

P.S. Any New Zealand readers might be interested in my new website: http://www.signoff.org.nz – a petition against committing to CO2 emission cuts at the Copenhagen conference.

4 2

July 23, 2009 at 7:20 am

The failure of the mortgage derivative market in America may turn out to be a minor blip compared to the financial melt down if (when) the carbon market fails.

1 1

Mike M

July 23, 2009 at 7:43 am

This is from President Eisenhowers’s farewell speech from almost 50 years ago, (emphasis mine). His fearful prophecy from way back then is coming true today:

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Additionally, there are people like Dr. Fred Singer… The leftists/econazis/etc routinely smear Dr. Singer even though they have never been able to form a rational rebuttal against anything he has said. They try to smear him by associating him with the PAID work he did for the tobacco industry but, more importantly, they trot out the $10,000 he received from the Petroleum Institute as proof he’s ‘in the bag’ for big oil. … $10K, whoop-dee-do!

Speaking of BILLIONS… perhaps they are still back on their heels from when he DECIMATED Carl Sagan in a debate concerning the climate implications from Kuwaiti Oil Fires in 1991, (Saddam’s response to “Desert Storm”)? Climate alarmist Sagan said they would affect our climate globally and cause massive agricultural failures, etc. like some nuclear winter scenario. Singer, an atmospheric physicist, cleaned Sagan’s clock and predicted no major impact would occur at all. History bore out that Singer knew what he was talking about and Sagan was speaking out of his, well ….., (Sagan to his credit later admitted that he was completely wrong.)

Sagan died in 1996 so he isn’t here to kick around anymore but there’s an important relationship between him and the anti-nuke crowd earlier back then. He was a vocal critic of Reagan’s “star wars” and nuke build up and therefore the darling of groups like the “Union of Concerned Scientists”, (UCS), whose single purpose back then was to force nuclear arms reductions. But Reagan prevailed, the USSR folded and the UCS was left embarrassed by the idea that peace was assured, not by what those bed-wetters wanted but instead by projecting superior fire power.

But they didn’t go away, they just re-focused their agenda. According to the Marshall Institute,(I know they are out there hissing at me just mentioning that name!), UCS collected huge grants from leftist organizations like a $24 million dollar one back in 2000 and switched to global warming alarmism in place of nuke attack alarmism. Their charter reads: “devise means for turning research applications away from the present emphasis on military technology toward the solution of pressing environmental and social problems.” With nukes off the table, (they kowtow to socialists like Kim Jong Ill so they are mum concerning the nuke threat from him), the global warming scam was a natural for them and Sagan was just one of their stooges who came with a built-in celebrity status.

So while most everyone remembers Carl Sagan, (who really wasn’t such a bad guy otherwise), hardly anyone knows about Fred Singer who is routinely smeared along with his SEPP by groups like the UCS who collect huge sums of money from leftist “foundations”.

5 2

Chris Bolts Sr.

July 23, 2009 at 8:57 am

Rob brings up a good point. At the heart of the mortgage meltdown in the States and the pumping up of the carbon trading scheme seems to have one thing in common: there’s a central force, the government, moving these markets in one direction. A new industry has been propagated under our noses by the American government. Oh, I know! Maybe that’s why we have global warming: more government spending due to the inflation of the dollar has contributed to the increase in global temperatures. After all, if there weren’t more dollars out there, people wouldn’t be able to travel and spend, thus there would be lower carbon emissions everywhere. So this is obviously Bush’s fault for not reigning in spending and Obama’s fault because he thinks the only way to run government is to spend. 😛

3 0

C. Paul Barreira

July 23, 2009 at 9:42 am

To repeat what I have said elsewhere. I give up. Zimbabwe provides the model for the future and that pretty much is that. It was commented in the report under discussion that there need be no programme of deceit. That may have been true in the past; it is true no longer. Deceit defines the game. Why that should be so is unclear, very much so, and will pose great difficulties for any future historian inclined to investigate the foundations of this monstrous act of lying.

4 0

July 23, 2009 at 10:39 am

Yes Chris Bolts, now that we’ve bailed out Goldenman Sachs for losing money in trading overvalued mortgage derivatives, they’re lining up to do the same thing with totally valueless carbon credits. Michael Milken’s mistake was simply being ahead of his time. If he had only waited twenty years he would not have been convicted – he would have gotten bailed out and appointed as Obama’s economic wreckovery Czar.

Don H

July 23, 2009 at 11:12 am

Anyone interested in a new market for trading in tulip bulbs? they must be due for a comeback and at least they are genuinely “green”

2 0

nofreewind

July 23, 2009 at 11:20 am

Thank you Joanne, this is one of the best reports of all time.

“Monopolistic Science” – The climate industry is costing taxpayers $79 billion and counting

July 23, 2009 at 11:41 am

[…] Nova, “For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. […]

Lazlo

July 23, 2009 at 11:58 am

For those who haven’t seen it before the following from Rolling Stone (hardly a big oil funded denier rag) exposes the Goldman Sachs connection with AGW and the next big bubble they are trying to create out of thin air.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine
Today’s ICECAP also reveals John Holdren’s gratefulness to Goldman Sachs.

Rod Smith

July 23, 2009 at 12:03 pm

Brian # 3 You have essentially hit the nail on the head with this post.

I could quibble around the edges of one of your comments a bit. I remember beginning in the early 60’s of mailing, to a USAF center in Asheville, daily punched paper tapes and later (for years) magnetic tapes of raw weather as gathered from all sources. The place was called the Environmental Technical Activities Center, or ETAC.

When I first inquired as to what they did, the answer was “climatology,” although that was not part of their name, which I suspect was by design.

I know they were in operation until at least sometime the late 80’s, still doing the same job and I remember being jokingly “chewed out” on the phone by the director in the late seventies for not hearing him honking at me (in traffic, in Nashville, TN) after I had been retired from the AF for some years.

And congratulations for you translation to “American English” in #4. I am a big fan of calling a spade by its correct name.

I would also note that after spending (US) $ 4,400,000,000 in FY 2009 alone on “Climate Technology,” we still have problems in the US with gathering accurate temperature readings, and that this is not, at least directly, the fault of academia.

rafnics

July 23, 2009 at 12:04 pm

I assume the table has units of millions? This should be clear, and then I can post the link to others.

July 23, 2009 at 12:05 pm

I am convinced that John Holdren is actually UNABOMBER Ted Kaczynski, who was let out of jail and given a Government job because his environmentalist views were so extreme

AGAPE Movement

July 23, 2009 at 12:21 pm

1 0

GaryL

July 23, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Wow…. Joanne does it again! I think we all knew this was the case with massive one-sided funding but I had no idea of the magnitude. Great work and interesting reading.

Dallas Beaufort

July 23, 2009 at 2:47 pm

Whats new about socialist governments drunk on taxation, sanctioning institutional fraud, aided and abetted by politically corrupt scientists. It reminds me of communism before the wall came down and is now being rebuilt all over the west under the guise of CO2 man made climate change.

7 0

Ray Hibbard

July 23, 2009 at 2:48 pm

The only reason that the dollar has any value at all is that the government says it does, “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private”. This is the definition if fiat money. Carbon offsets will only have value because the government says it does, a fiat currency masquerading as a commodity if you will. Man I don’t even like saying it, it makes my skin crawl. Perhaps carbon credits will be the new world wide accepted fiat currency. Then all we will need is another central bank to issue these credits or something that performs the same function under a different name.

Jimmy Haigh

July 23, 2009 at 2:54 pm

An excellent article. I’ve sent it on to everyone I know.

There are obscenely huge sums of money mentioned here. I wonder where it’s all gone?

Joanne Nova

July 23, 2009 at 2:57 pm

http://www.drudgereport.com/
We made the Drudge Report! Third story under the fold.

And Andrew Bolt:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/follow_the_hot_money/#commentsmore

July 23, 2009 at 3:11 pm

Great work, and would be even greater to drill down on EU funding for AGW. A swag of this allegedly goes to the likes of Greenpeace to propagandise the bs.

July 23, 2009 at 3:27 pm

Where did it all go, Jimmy?

Why, it went to create Centres of Climate Fill-In-The-Blank at innumerable universities and government departments, that’s where it went, and once you have created a Centre for Climate Propaganda and Confusion, and have staffed it, then who the devil is going to fund this lovely entity in perpetuity?

Exxon-Mobil?

Of course not, no private enterprise in the world would fund such an albatross and for good reason, the pay-out is exactly zero.

What then do they exist for?

They exist to maintain themselves in perpetuity, to gather nonexistent evidence that the world has been somehow altered only for the worse.

There was a lot of money spent on Star Wars in the 1980’s. But Universities policed themselves over the University participation in that – many professors of science and engineering were told, you support yourself in Star Wars, you’re dead meat.

Here the leftist politics add up to research funding for ever. Plus no blackballing from your colleagues.

You do, however, face getting blackballed if you have a questionable “denier” smell about you

Climate Research News » $79 Billion Spent and Counting: Still No Proof of AGW

July 23, 2009 at 4:34 pm

[…] Read more at Jo Nova: ‘Massive Climate Funding Exposed’ […]

Follow the hot money « An Honest Climate Debate

July 23, 2009 at 8:03 pm

[…] Read Joanne Nova’s findings in full here. […]

Government monopsony distorts climate science, says SPPI | Lux Libertas - Light and Liberty

July 23, 2009 at 10:28 pm

Bob Clark

July 24, 2009 at 5:55 am

Let’s face it; this is one of the biggest criminal enterprises in the history of man. It claims to be based on socialism and saving the planet, slogans for the sucker, low IQ greenies who go along with this bunko scheme (many of them are crack heads in the Seattle area). I love the way Al Gore comes on with his masterful con presentation while all the time counting away the billions he alone stands to steal with this climate change fraud.
We need to get to GE and let them know that we know that they are criminals and we will deal with them later.
In the meantime we should arrest the global warmers and charge them with mail and wire fraud under Title 18 and put them in a Fed Prison to think about their transgressions.

Government monopsony distorts climate science, says SPPI - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source!

July 24, 2009 at 6:32 am

[…]

July 24, 2009 at 6:51 am

Good going Joanne! It’s now been on Drudge for over 24 hours, a good indication that it’s been getting a lot of hits. I expect that you might soon get a call from FNC to go on Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity. There have not been very many people to step up to the plate and try to serve as “leader of climate realists”, (okay, maybe we’ll have to work on a more catchy title), but you have my vote!

Massive Climate Funding Exposed | Global Warming Skeptics

July 24, 2009 at 11:38 am

[…] LINK AKPC_IDS += “2788,”;Popularity: unranked [?] […]

Sunsettommy (Thomas pearson)

July 24, 2009 at 11:42 am

This tinfoil report was paid for by oil money!

Really!

ROFLMAO!

July 24, 2009 at 11:47 am

[…] LINK AKPC_IDS += “2790,”;Popularity: unranked [?] […]

July 24, 2009 at 12:09 pm

On an alarmist blog, one of the anonymous bloggers (did you ever notice they are all anonymous on alarmist web sites?)

told me that he knows of “deniers” who “charge fees” to post comments on alarmist web sites – and was I one of those?

Joanne, will you pay me to write smart-aleck comments on alarmist web sites? Nobody else will

queenbee2626

July 24, 2009 at 2:33 pm

So glad you got the word out about the money! I can only hope the USA Senate votes down this hoax. I’ll send your information to Senator Inhofe’s fax. He has been fighting against this debacle for over 10 years. Thanks for your hard work.

Still Think It's All About "Pollution"? | Smoke Break

July 24, 2009 at 3:29 pm

[…] Joanne Nova does the math and provides its empirical evidence to back up what many of us have been saying for some time now. The science of gobal warming is a myth designed solely as a means for a few to gain power and control through the creation of a new kind of commodity, sold to the dim-witted using the psychology of fear. […]

July 24, 2009 at 4:16 pm

Perhaps carbon credits will be the new world wide accepted fiat currency.

“Money” = “wealth” created by producing something.

“Carbon Credit” = “wealth” created by NOT producing something. (?)

The less you produce, the more wealth you gain!

Now I’m in one of my just-thinking-about Al Gore makes me want to SPIT moods again

July 24, 2009 at 4:44 pm

Not quite Brian: “Money” is a promise of value made by the government or central banks.

Just like carbon credits, it’s made from thin air, backed by government decree.

What they give, they can take away.

As they pump billions (and I mean billions) of fresh dollars made from thin air into the worlds banks it steals a little bit of purchasing power from every single dollar out there. It’s worse than being just taxpayer funded. Retirees, savers, tiny tots with piggy banks – they are all paying through the silent tax of inflation.

Carbon credits would be just another fiat currency begging to be mired in corruption and constantly dependent for their very existence on government fiat.

Real things, like oil, banana’s, carrots, and cars don’t exist because the government says they do, and their markets are free (well.. kind of). These things are “wealth”. If you own a house, the house has a value of 1 house, it’s price in dollars though can go up or down 30%. Never mix up money for a real thing. It’s a bit of paper or binary code.

A free market, (ie. no government intervention) in carbon credits would immediately reduce the price to zero, because there is no value (bar fashionable boasting rights) in owning the rights to a piece of air that has slightly less carbon dioxide in it than it theoretically “might have had”.

July 24, 2009 at 5:24 pm

But “money” is still tied to production of something or other. It is a form of exchange to produce something else or do something else. The aggregate of things of value is averaged and given the name “dollar” or whatever.

People have incentive to prouduce or exchange something considered to be of value for this.

If a carbon credit is issued in exchange for doing “nothing” then how can it be assigned a value?

allen mcmahon

July 24, 2009 at 9:47 pm

Joanne
Real things should equate to “wealth” but it does not happen in real life if you are a small producer. I have a beef cattle property and since 2000 our margins have been badly eroded. The introduction the ETS will see small producers take a huge hit.
Fortunately I am in a better position to survive than many others so I can at least enjoy annoying the hell out of rabid greenies for decades to come.
It is nice to sit up on a hill which overlooks the whole property and calculate the amount of methane I am pumping into the atmosphere. When I become bored with this I can always enjoy a good controlled burn off.
If only I believed in AGW I know that I was being screwed because I was evil and thoroughly deserved it.

Lionell Griffith

July 24, 2009 at 10:27 pm

There are two very different things called money.

The first is a real value or a demand certificate of a real value used as a medium of exchange. The real value is a material commodity that has substantial value as a luxury and industrial good, easily divisible, and resistant to environmental decay: ie gold, silver etc. The material commodity takes a significant productive effort to extract from nature and its amount cannot easily be expanded.

The second is fiat money (carbon credits included). Fait money is a financial instrument created by a government and forced on the market at the point of the government’s gun. Its only value is the value of defaced paper or adulterated metal in coins. It is used as a medium of exchange of value but at origination there is no significant productive value behind it. It is simply more convenient to do so than use direct barter of produced goods. Because of the gun of government, the market has little choice in the matter. Unfortunately, the quantity of fiat money can be easily expanded by changing the numbers on the printing plates and running the printing presses longer and faster.

Now that a representation of money exists mostly as computer bits in fictional entities called accounts, its quantity can be expanded at computer speed with hardly any effort at all. There is nothing but the honesty and honor of the government and the banks standing between a stable currency and one that is expanding into hyper-inflation. When the government controls the banking system, neither the government nor the banking system can be trusted not to multiply the bits. See the recent use of synthetic bailout funds by various governments for instructive detail.

Reality is real. There is no such thing as a free lunch. There is a huge bill that is already stamped due and payable. Like it or not, all of us will be paying it along with our children, grand children, and who knows how many generations. There is no government fiction that can keep it from happening.

July 25, 2009 at 2:29 am

I think Joanne and Lionell know more about money and its relation to the economy than the Federal reserve boards of the US and the Reserve Bank of Australia, and I wish these entities would follow Joanne’s and Lionell’s thoughts, rather than their own courses of action

July 25, 2009 at 4:16 am

A Climate Money “Team”?

The US government funding is obviously a part of a bigger total. But just how much do other governments put in? Is it worth pursuing the numbers?

I don’t have time to track down estimates… but if people want to help expose the Climate Money tentacles, please add comments here with links if you can find them of money put into climate related programs by your national government or your state government (if you are in the US). Heck even stories of local governments getting involved would be interesting. We can’t capture the full audit of councils and schools, but a few good examples would make for interesting reading. It would be telling…

I’ll put that information together (with acknowledgements for all who help.)

If there are any good googler researchers out there your services are in demand. Even if you know the name of the “Climate Change Program” that applies in your sovereign area, that would help. (ie. in the US, CCSP and CCTP). It’s one less step to have to research to find out the funding.

Australia actually has a “Department of Climate Change (and water)”. How many other governments have gone this far? http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/index.html

Cheers! Jo

July 25, 2009 at 5:05 am

Brian G Valentine post 39: If a carbon credit is issued in exchange for doing “nothing” then how can it be assigned a value?

Its value is that having it can prevent the government from doing bad things to you, sort of protection money with all the mob connotations that apply. Its actual value will be discovered in the trading pits by traders and actual users of the credits, power companies etc.
Technically almost all of our money is borrowed into existence. Every dollar you handle has been created this way. The Fed can just print it but in practice they usually don’t, though they have recently they just call it quantitative easing. If the government wants to borrow they will offer bonds which can be purchased by the private sector but they can also be purchased by the Fed Reserve. When the Fed buys them they just put an amount in a ledger account. The money that the government receives comes out of thin air but they have borrowed it into existence from the Fed.
The really irksome thing about all this is taxpayers get to pay interest on all this borrowed money that was just spoofed into existence by the Fed. The whole monetary policy of the U.S. and for that matter any country with a central bank is just crazy, a racket, a scam, a con job. It also depends desperately on inflation in order to ‘work’, deflation will tear it apart.

July 25, 2009 at 5:14 am

An industry, say making steel, would be issued Carbon Credits (if Al Gore had his way).

OK. Now all the steel industry has to do, is go out of business.

Now the industry has wealth, because it was issued carbon credits!

Now the industry can attempt to sell the credits to another (patsy) and so on, which continue to fold for no other reason than to accumulate “wealth” in this way.

Right up to the point where money is worthless anyway, since nothing is being produced.

For the life of me I cannot see what must be the error of this logic

BobC

July 25, 2009 at 6:55 am

Brian @ 45:

I believe you have described a Ponzi scheme.

It makes sense to our politicans, because they are so economically illiterate that they can’t tell the difference between zero-sum games and wealth creation. They should all be assigned to study and explain “The goose that laid the golden eggs”.

It’s strange that a slave in ancient Greece (Aesop) knew more about economics than our ivy-league “educated” elite.

July 25, 2009 at 8:02 am

Brian G Valentine post 45:

Taking your thoughts a bit farther, I don’t think they would want to go out of business; they would need to be in the business in order to get subsequent carbon credits. What they might do is search for the sweet spot. Find a production level, probably lower, which maximizes profits on your steel while allowing you to still sell off some portion of your unused carbon credits each year. This kind of governmental intrusion into the whole supply/demand equation is so dangerous I can’t describe it with any language I know. I would need to invent one.

Intuitively I would expect lower employment, off shoring more, if not all, manufacturing, and supply shortages of effected products.
I think the error of the logic is in the whole concept that the government can bequeath value on something that has no intrinsic value. It’s almost like the Catholic Church selling dispensations during 1500s’. If you look at it from the politicians’ point of view he gains a lot of power and control. It’s backdoor socialism, and command/control centralized economy.

So I wouldn’t spend a lot of time looking for any logic in any of this. It will fail and it will fail miserably lets hope it does that fast before to much damage is done.

Derek

July 25, 2009 at 8:06 am

Just so you may feel a little sorry for us here in the UK.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/

and then there is

http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk/index.html

AND, we have a prime minister we did not vote for.
Which is small fry come to think of it………

July 25, 2009 at 8:49 am

News from the “May the Court have mercy on the boy for killing his parents for he is now an orphan” department.

Well, Global Warmers, you’re the ones who put them out of business with your carbon taxes!

So what if they’re all made in China now, stop BELLYACHING

Tel

July 25, 2009 at 11:33 am

Fait money is a financial instrument created by a government and forced on the market at the point of the government’s gun. Its only value is the value of defaced paper or adulterated metal in coins.

… plus the additional value brought to the equation by that gun you mention.

July 25, 2009 at 11:38 am

Once again, the value comes from the gun that Lionell speaks of. The value of not getting clobbered is generally high enough to balance any ledger.

July 25, 2009 at 12:10 pm

umm, Mr Telagraphy, isn’t a demand forced by preventing threatened harmful action better known as “extortion”?

Under what categories do businesses normally account for extortion?

And are they usually accounted as a credit or debit?

Henry chance

July 25, 2009 at 2:23 pm

Looks like Joe romm and soros are outspending BIG oil.
big air.

July 25, 2009 at 2:44 pm

Joe acts out the way he does because he wants a political green policy or enforcement appointment.

Joe performs these (unscheduled) auditions for those in the Obama government who are, rather ho-hum to his mediocre talents in demonising critics and hyperventilating about imagined threats.

Joe had all he could to keep from throwing a temper tantrum in a moderated debate with Marc Morano and even if he did, Joe’s performance wouldn’t have been rated any lower.

(I don’t know what I’m going to do if AGW hysteria goes away. I fear I will simply be unable to come up with anything remotely funny )

July 25, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Brian G Valentine post 52:
“Under what categories do businesses normally account for extortion?
And are they usually accounted as a credit or debit?”

They are a debit, category miscellaneous to protect the guilty.

Governments aren’t that far removed from any gang organization during a crisis. They just dress better and carry better firearms, oh, and they tend to shave. Check R.J. Rummel Death by Government almost 170 million killed by their own governments in the 20th century. What’s a little extortion between friends?

July 25, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Under what categories do businesses normally account for extortion?

And are they usually accounted as a credit or debit?

If you are a simpleton using single-entry bookkeeping, then it falls under the category of “oh bugger, there goes my stuff again,” and you end up owning a bit less than you did before (but you stay alive another day). This has been the standard method of peasant accounting since the dawn of history.

If you are a sophisticate using double-entry bookkeeping, then a Credit appears in your cash account and you need to invent a Nominal Expense Account to hold the balancing Debit. Look for a column titled “Hypocrisy”, the expenses will usually be under there. Sometimes the written title of that column may change, many euphemisms are available for this purpose (you know how it is with those Nominal Expense Accounts, all sorts of things can happen).

For example, the recent Howard government in Australia sent a substantial sum of money (some tens of millions if I recall) to Saddam Hussein in Iraq via the Australian Wheat Board under the heading of “Transport Expenses”, then everyone “forgot” about it afterwards. Somehow we have a multi-billion dollar black market in opiates that turns up nowhere on any account, but the money changes hands and all accounts still balance — figure that one out, in this day of Big Brother being able to scrutinise anything about anyone, how does such massive money transfer stay under the radar?

For those with a serious creativity deficit, just rule one big column and call it, “Cost of Doing Business”. Good for all occasions.

As for the exact definition of “extortion”, this tends to be a bit of a personal decision, with similar problems to the exact definition of “bribery” and the very fine distinctions of “freedom” and “for your own good”. You will be needing the services of someone much more highly qualified than myself to help you with those.

July 25, 2009 at 3:06 pm

Elected lawmaker to him/her self, contemplating their existence:

“Do something! Do something! Do SOMETHING, anyway, you fought so hard to get this office, now just do something, will ya? You can write laws, so write ’em! Are you gonna leave this dump and be remembered by everyone (including yourself) as a ‘do-nothing’? And are you going to let your next opponent for this office call you a ‘do-nothing’ in public?

And Greenpeace is all set to call you ‘denier’s abettor’ – Jesus, look at what they did to your last opponent …”

July 25, 2009 at 3:21 pm

Oh yeah, I almost forgot.

If you are the gal/guy who does the GST examples on the Australian Tax Office website, and you are using Triple Entry Bookkeeping (which seems designed to gently ease the reader into an introductory understanding of n+1 entry hyper-dimensional accounting) then you are a certified genius to have any idea how that stuff works and what it means. The one thing I have yet to figure out is how to make any of the examples balance, but maybe that’s part of my reluctance to use imaginary number theory for accounting purposes.

The one thing I did pick up from reading the legislation is that Goods and Services Tax does apply on both bribes and extortion, unless those bribes and/or extortion payments are either tax or fees from a registered financial institution.

July 25, 2009 at 4:32 pm

I just love this web site because I can write exactly how I feel

July 25, 2009 at 7:37 pm

Any chance of returning to Jo’s post 43 above. ?
namely,

Joanne Nova:
July 25th, 2009 at 4:16 am
A Climate Money “Team”?

How about introducing a “fun” elemant to the searching as well, such as the daftest funding.
ie, You’ll be amazed how much and by so many countries is being put into cow trumps research.
Just try a google search on cow trumps..
But they are not taxing farmers, no, no, of course not..

July 26, 2009 at 1:46 am

I think Government policy is guided by the philosophy, “who can I walk upon and not cause a revolt”?

Big business is always an easy target because politicians know that the Public mistrusts “big business” anyway.

Farmers are kind of protected because of the public outcry that would result from leaning on farmers. “Hey what are you doing to the farmers? Haven’t you done enough damage around here without putting farmers out of business?”

But when the Government sets out to scare people with “climate change,” and harps on it, and gets the Royal Society to back them up and so on, then the Government can start “doing things” that the Public expects them to do.

“Hey we have a climate change problem, now we have to pay to fix it.”

But the Public may suspect, yet has not been proven beyond doubt, that Royal Society pronouncements about “climate change” are wholly bogus.

That’s where we (the Jo Nova’s of the world) come in I suppose.

July 26, 2009 at 1:49 am

Besides the near 80 billion fueling the fraud machine, there is the salary level of the top MSM network news reporters who would have to claim they are qualified for Sainthood before you could throw stones at them for hanging on to their $million plus salaries to perpetuate AGW/’green’ drivel. They have sold their souls and become puppets of the people who own those networks. NBC is the easiest example in that they are owned by General Electric who stands to reap a fortune from their investment in ‘green’ technology, (wind mills, CFL light bulbs, ‘smart grid’ technology, etc.) Then you start looking at the GE Political Action Committee, (GEPAC), and find that they made political campaign contributions of over $2 million just for the 08 election alone. So not only are they controlling the strings of their NBC news anchors – they’re also trying to do that with our elected officials.

July 26, 2009 at 1:56 am

General Electric’s actions are positively ghastly and when I think of how they distorted the vison of its founder, Thom Edison, or its one time visonary leader, Welch, I get SICK

July 26, 2009 at 2:02 am

George Marchall, project manager of an alarmism organisation, quouted before by me, and who won’t let me write on his web log, said it all for me anyway:

Claimate change is nothing but a trojan horse built by hair-shirted envionmentalists.

Men, women, children who aren’t tainted beyond repair about the truth of “climate change” – listen to George Marshall. He’s telling you the TRUTH

July 26, 2009 at 2:09 am

OK, so we don’t sound too miserable whilst looking for the appropriate links ..

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2008/07/10/cow-farts-collected-in-plastic-tank-for-global-warming-study/

There again, I think Greenpeace is worthy of a far more indepth investigation into who is funding their activities..
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/01/well-funded-well-funded-denial-machine.html
I wonder what the backlash would be if it turned out
to be in a large part “our taxes”…

July 26, 2009 at 2:17 am

Back in the 1950’s the Communists promised to “bury” the West.

I didn’t think they would do it.

But they did it! THEY FINALLY DID IT!!!

July 26, 2009 at 2:20 am

What an irony if it was “funded” by profits from abiotic oil. !

July 26, 2009 at 2:58 am

About six months ago Gordon Brown paid a visit to these United States and was invited to address the Senate.

Gordon Brown, to the US Senate:

“We must figure out new ways to repair the West’s financial institutions and to create wealth with new green jobs.”

ummm, Mr Brown, see #51 above, were you really expecting any other outcome?

July 26, 2009 at 6:35 am

Mr Brown didn’t see the present recession coming, that he had created.
How could he possibly be any use for such small problems as repairing a Nation’s financial institutions and creating wealth. ?

He’s not even much good on You Tube either.

July 26, 2009 at 6:44 am

The solution is so simple, though:

Get rid of any carbon tax, get rid of any incentive to “go green” at all, stop wasting money looking at “climate change”, get the engineers and scientists on the Government dole to look for ways to do conventional things MORE CHEAPLY, not MORE GREENLY.

Stop the pretension about “green” anything, (because it’s useless and it’s useless and it’s useless) and you’ll get the economy going once again.

I promise.

July 26, 2009 at 6:48 am

The reason Mr Brown appears so poorly on camera is that he monentarily leaves his mouth agape when he completes a sentence, and then he closes his mouth again quickly before he commences a new sentence.

July 26, 2009 at 7:11 am

Oh, and I thought it was because of what came out of his mouth between the
” he monentarily leaves his mouth agape when he completes a sentence, and then he closes his mouth again quickly before he commences a new sentence. ” episodes.

If only he’d learn to keep his mouth shut when starting a new sentence.

LOL.

Robin Grant

July 27, 2009 at 1:56 am

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

I find the inclusion of science and technology research strange to object to.

I would have thought that someone who believes that the science is not settled at a much lower level than the IPCC has reported, would see a need for much more research.

After all, if we don’t know the cause of the current warming, we owe it to policymakers to find out.

July 27, 2009 at 2:00 am

Mr Brown didn’t see the present recession coming, that he had created.

I’ve encountered the analysis that the current recession was caused by a credit crisis that had its origins in the US sub-prime mortgage market more often than the one that Gordon Brown caused it.

But he certainly lacks Charisma compared to his recent predecessors.

Global Warm....er Climate Change Alert - 3000 Low Temp Records Set In July

July 27, 2009 at 6:28 am

[…] $23 million). Published by SPPI, the report can be found here. Jo provides the following summary here:The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, […]

Green Desperation - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source!

July 27, 2009 at 6:42 am

July 27, 2009 at 6:43 am

July 27, 2009 at 7:02 am

“… if we don’t know the cause of the current warming …”

July 27, 2009 at 7:10 am

Mr Blair is many things, certainly, although I don’t know if “charismatic” is among his more highly recognised attributes.

I appreciate Mr Howard’s and Mr Blair’s support of the war to remove Saddam. I will always appreciate both for that.

I regret Mr Blair felt the need to atone for his decision to remove Saddam by “going green”

… as well as hanging out with the likes of that lout, Sir Richard

July 28, 2009 at 2:58 am

Brilliant line Joanne.

“outsource your thinking” From the video clip on

http://icecap.us/

July 28, 2009 at 6:49 am

Great video Henry Chance.

May I add a direct You Tube link to the video you mentioned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0veQQgGxKus

and another of Jo at the CC in New York.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB2lOIqghOA

If you have a You Tube account then why not and them to your playlists.
I have.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Weiun&view=playlists

July 28, 2009 at 11:13 am

Planting false evidence is a crime, tampering with evidence is a crime, cooking the books is a crime, perjury is a crime, perverting the course of justice is a crime, but none of these are crimes within our public institutions or in the court of public opinion.

Government monopsony distorts climate science, says SPPI | We Are Change Seattle

July 29, 2009 at 6:08 am

CLIMATE SCIENCE FUNDING « Climate Change Sanity

August 3, 2009 at 5:08 am

[…] Hardly a fair contest, $79 billion versus $23 million. But to get more insight on the way this affects the perception of what theory or theories are correct. Read more here […]

August 16, 2009 at 8:50 pm

So how much funding should be spent to study another kind of threat to our planet but one which has nothing to do with climate? Though, similar to the earth’s geologic climate history, what if the knowledge of this other threat was also based upon events that actually happened in our past? What if it is a threat with actual convincing scientific evidence that suggests it may even have in one instance wiped out more than 90% of life on this planet? But what if yet another aspect of this other threat was uniquely VERY different from climate in that further study could actually lead to an actual defense against it happening to us?

And, probably most importantly… what if there was no profit in persuading people that this other threat was real and also no possibile way to convince people to blame themselves for it – no way to brainwash them into feeling GUILTY over something for which they have no control whatsoever?

So… how much money is it worth compared to ‘global warming’? 1/10th? 1/100th? … how about not even 0.004 the cost spread out over ten years!

Asteroid tracking – NASA cannot even scrape up a measley $300 million to catalog large asteroids some of which actually could ‘have our name on them’ in the future.

Lindley Johnson, NASA’s manager of the near-Earth objects program: “NASA calculated that to spot the asteroids as required by law would mean spending about $800 million between now and 2020, either with a new ground-based telescope or a space observation system. If NASA got only $300 million it could find most asteroids bigger than 1,000 feet across.” But so far NASA has gotten neither sum.

Let us pray, not for anyone to be harmed of course but, should a 1000 footer come our way in the near future, that it slams right into Al Gore’s house when no one is home leaving nothing but a deep smoking hole in the ground. Lord, we pray for Your Cosmic Justice, justice that no one will deny!

Brian R

October 2, 2009 at 2:02 am

Thanks Joanne for the great info, I heard you on the Jason Lewis show here in the US and will do my best to spread it across the internet! Thanks again

Thomas T S Watson

November 20, 2009 at 9:04 pm

I have positively established a formula that connects the magnetic involvement of the internal atom to what science is applying as Gravity. My simple formula now confirms that these two forces are equal and the same. My book Climate Change – Explained by Magnetism is available (ISBN 0-978-0 646-47722-0) The break though I have achieved is that Climate Change is attributed to our Sun’s Heliosphere switching that was identified by NASA – USA on the 15 February 2001. As from that date area, our climate has progressively becoming cooler in summer, and our winters progressively, getting warmer. This is because of the interaction between our Earth’s Magnetosphere and the magnetic effects of the Heliosphere. Believe it or not, but the facts are there and should be carefully looked at before any future advise on Carbon Dioxide is made that rates human life is responsible for Climate Change. I have no connection between any industrial or commercial connections. I am privately asking that all affected industries seek my book and presentation and then decide for themselves if this can be true. When they are satisfied, I will gladly give additional details how this material can fight the IPCC and Mr Al Gores indoctrination to tax the world of its income. I need your support as well as you need mine.

TWAWKI

November 30, 2009 at 12:43 pm

[…] dont forget the money trail, there is the rates as […]

twawki

November 30, 2009 at 12:44 pm

Wow – the amount of money is staggering – imagine if all that had been put to a good cause!

Show me the money! « TWAWKI

December 13, 2009 at 9:00 am

[…] the Global Change Research Act had $5 billion at its disposal in 2004. Joane Nova has a piece on Massivc climate funding exposed. Also SPPI report – Government grant system = more an inhibitor of truth and innovation. […]

dave ward

December 23, 2009 at 8:10 am

Jo, I have had a quick look through one of the “leaked” CRU documents – a .XLS spreadsheet entitled “pdj_grant_since_1990” which gives a breakdown of some £13.7million funding to them. I make roughly £10.5million of that coming from UK government or quango sources. The rest seems to be EU/US Government funding, with a few grants from companies. There is a text version viewable here:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/16992057/Climatic-Research-Unit-pdj-grant-since1990

teddy bear

February 7, 2010 at 10:09 am

Do you truly think that is true? You did an excellent job stating your point, but I think you must put a little more thought in this debate and maybe post an answer to the opposite side of this post.

February 8, 2010 at 1:16 pm

[Thomas T S Watson] As of 1 October 2009, I changed my email address from ttsw@datafast.net.au to ttsw@bigpond.com. because of dial-up restrictions.

My conviction to my theory is slowly growing and a member from the University Of West Australia gave me a challenge to submit a scientific paper to the Journal Geophysical Research. This is now being prepared. I am confident of my findings and now need peer review to prove my theory is practical by showing why our Earth has a moon, oscillating between or hemispheres. My theory also referrers to the fact that our solar system has a basic alignment to each other planet and is supported by the study of five members from South African, showing our Earth’s spiral orbital patterns are confirmed with graphics by: WJR Alexander, F. Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe and N Willemse of Journal of South Africa – Vol 49 November 2 June 2007

February 8, 2010 at 1:42 pm

[Phillip Bratby] Phillip. i agree. This money has been applied to convince the world that Carbon Dioxide is the villain and has caused this Climate Change without any proven scientific evidence, other that the botched scientific evidence that was presented by the IPCC and Mr Al Gore. Their so called evidence has been disproved and our Earth is now COOLING since 1998. The evidence I have shows without doubt that our climate has been changing since 2001 and that our Climate change is totally influenced by our Sun’s heliosphere reversal on the 15 February 2001. Our Sun’s Heliosphere reversal also directly affects the barometric pressures that directly affects cloud heights and this is the base reason why our climate has drastically changed. Carbon Dioxide has had absolutely nothing to do with this climate change.

Bhazor

February 21, 2010 at 10:24 pm

You do realise that the funding was risen during the Bush years right? As in the Bush family? As in Enron and Haliburton? As in the most oil soaked administration in US history? So it’s a government conspiracy that happens to directly attack its own government?

No body here is even trying to dismiss the science anymore.

February 21, 2010 at 11:36 pm

Here? I’m ‘here’ and there’s vitually nothing left to dismiss anymore because even the liberal state run media MSM who foisted the hoax on us have been caught chuckling at it at press conferences. Polls indicate public concern towards AGW being any sort of ‘crisis’ has sunken to an unprecedented LOW. Gore has become the butt of jokes and is no where to be found anymore. State run MSM barely mentions the issue anymore because they are afraid of the backlash from an enlightened populace who at least knows that the science is FAR from ‘settled’ and that the only people who were saying the ‘debate is over’ were those who were unarmed to debate it in the first place. Even some corporations that had thought the ‘writing was on the wall’ that they’d have to get behind the ‘Green’ movement in order to survive high priced energy – are now backing out because they see the ride turning and don’t want to be associated with the HOAX.

How in the world you can even attempt to connect Enron and Haliburton into the discussion can only be described as hilarious! Radical environmental leftists in non-profit groups, (WWF, Audubon, Sierra, etc.) and in universities, (eg USC Berkley) started lining up behind the idea in the late 70’s LONG before even G. H. Bush was elected; James Hansen started grunting about AGW back in 1988.

Maurice Strong, close friend of Al Gore and the man who FOUNDED the UN’s initial self-serving involvement into environmental isues said back in ~1998:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”

He doesn’t have a leg to stand on and either do you…

February 21, 2010 at 11:53 pm

Thomas T S Watson: I have positively established a formula that connects the magnetic involvement of the internal atom to what science is applying as Gravity.

Are you basically declaring that you have succeeded where Einstein failed with a unified field theory”?

Emission Trading - Page 113 - Renovate Forums

March 3, 2010 at 1:30 am

[…] into this area of research globally over time, which is unprecedented in human history. See herefor an idea of just some of the dollars being […]

March 7, 2010 at 12:25 pm

According to your sources, this funding also goes to land use research, water cycle research, climate research (not related to warming), ecosystems research, etc, etc…

Isn’t it very dodgy to try and claim that all this money goes to global warming research?

May 5, 2010 at 9:34 pm

Thomas T. S. Watson
I was disgusted to learn that after going through the technical aspects of my approach to magnetism, a single Editor of that department has the control of what science is to be produced in the organization the size of the Journal for Solid Earth. I get the feeling that some science believers believe that they control the Earth and are afraid to face the truth that our Sun Controls the Earth, not mankind.
My book had a thirty present sale at a group meeting in Melbourne last night and there were 27 members and some with high degrees behind them in Melbourne, Australia.
When will the public realize with this small contributor from a pension able to compete against the odd $7,000,000,000 program in telling the world that Carbon Dioxide is changing the world’s climate. This is impossible to happen because our Sun decided to change our climate on the 15th. February 2001, and we have witnessed the cooling down ever since. Please look at the changed reversal of the barometric pressures over this period, as I have done, and you will need no further evidence.
Please readers, if you have a view here, don’t hold back by saying nothing. This is where these organizations grows their strength from with the silence of a skeptic at heart.

When can we jail deniers? - Page 9 - The Environment Site Forums

May 17, 2010 at 8:33 am

[…] companies you allude to cant come anywhere near that level of funding for thier alleged agenda. Massive climate funding exposed « JoNova Its certainly not oil company funding that is corrupting climate science. Its chickenfeed compared […]

PragmaticJim

May 25, 2010 at 1:22 am

Why are we comparing apples with oranges here?
Shouldn’t we be looking at funding for climate science, as it compares with funding for other sciences, such as medicine, agricultural, computer, physics, etc.
Why are we comparing funding for research with funding for anti science public relations “think tanks”?
I have an answer to both questions.
We have a personal bias against global warming science, because the evidence that it reveals suggests that we may have to reduce our dependence on cheap fossil fuels, or suffer severe ecological consequences. Better to shoot the messenger, right?

May 25, 2010 at 6:42 am

…the evidence that it reveals suggests that we may have to …, or suffer severe ecological consequences.

WHAT evidence suggests ‘severe ecological consequences’?

Get it straight. There is ZERO evidence that suggests ‘severe ecological consequences’ if we do nothing to curb our CO2 emissions – ZERO. If you think you have evidence then why have you waited 20 years to present it?

Alarmists have purported that ‘Global Warming’ will increase storm frequency and intensity even though there is not ONE scientific study to back up that claim; all studies show no correlation.

Alarmists have purported that ‘Global Warming’ will increase disease and pestilence but the truth appears to be the opposite. Not only is there no correlation to malaria, greater warmth extends growing seasons producing more food which generally produces healthier well-fed people with stronger immune systems. The black plague occurred as the result of an overlap of several factors one of them being global COOLING which factored into why fleas readily jumped onto and bit humans who are not their normal target for food.

Alarmists have purported that ‘Global Warming’ is causing a dramatic acceleration of sea level rise – none has been detected. Sea level has been steadily rising for over 8000 years since the last major ice age.

Alarmists have purported that ‘Global Warming’ is causing a dramatic acceleration of glacier retreat in Greenland and other places. There are no scientific studies that conclude current glacier retreat is at an ‘unprecedented’ rate anywhere on earth, (the Himalayan glacier report used by IPCC was found to be a phony non-scientific school paper used by WWF as propaganda.). The current rate of ice melt on Greenland was recently measured by micro gravity shift and it concluded that at the current rate of melt Greenland will be ice free in about 15,000 years.

Alarmists have purported that ‘Global Warming’ will cause the Arctic to be ice free in the summer. Arctic Ice is a function of temperature, wind and ocean currents. The present amount of Arctic ice is close to the average it has been for the last thirty years. Some years it melts more than others. 2007 was one such year but so was 1959 when there was open water at the north pole; (there are photographs of submarines surfacing there and it wasn’t even yet at the normal minimum period).

Alarmists have purported that ‘Global Warming’ will cause mass extinctions. This is one of the silliest claims they make. Firstly, global warming occurs mostly at high latitudes leaving the tropics virtually unaffected. The net result is an expansion of tropical environments, (within the limitations of prevailing winds). The tropics is where majority of LIFE exists – not the poles! The huge diversity of species occurs where it is WARMEST – not coldest. Very little life exists at the poles and, should those areas get warmer, they have been warm before and those species living there now are already proven to be the HARDIEST of species best able to deal with changes to their climate. If all the Arctic ice disappeared one summer do you really think polar bears will starve or will they just hunt for seals from the shore lines instead of from ice flows? They’ve apparently managed to do it 10’s of thousands of years ago – I’ll bet that they’ll do just fine.

Alarmists have purported that more CO2 in the ocean is causing ‘ocean acidification’. B.S., the ocean is alkaline and highly buffered. On top of that the alarmists told us that as the ocean warmed up it would RELEASE CO2 into the atmosphere that would cause even more ‘global warming’. That’s actually true, a warmer ocean cannot hold as much CO2. So if the ocean is releasing CO2 – it has LESS CO2 and CO2 is therefore NOT causing a decrease of ocean pH.

Lastly your remark about ‘anti-science’ – you have it backwards. The government paid scientists are the ones generating ‘anti-science’, they are the ones ‘hiding the decline’, ignoring freedom of information requests for raw data, deleting raw data and blocking the peer review process for those scientists who disagree with them. Climate science paid by government funding has become POLITICALLY linked to the socialist agenda of the progressive movement. (As proof consider that the climate bill already passed in the US House is a MASSIVE increase in taxation but does virtually NOTHING to actually curb greenhouse gases at all! The Senate version isn’t much different…) As such, government paid scientists can no longer be trusted to be honest because they cannot trust that the government will not fire them if they report the truth. They now report what they are PAID to report. Science is now for sale to the highest bidder and guess WHO has almost ALL the money?

May 27, 2010 at 12:37 pm

I have it straight. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that suggests severe ecological consequences’ if we do nothing to curb our CO2 emissions. I don’t have to present it. It has been, and is continually being presented in research papers almost daily. To refuse it’s existence shows that you either refuse to read it, or refuse to admit that you have read it.

Some scientist suggest that ‘Global Warming’ may increase storm frequency and intensity though there are few studies that show a strong correlation.

Some scientists suggest that ‘Global Warming’ may increase disease and pestilence. Though any correlation to malaria, is weak, and studies show that the spread of malaria is much more subject to influences of use of, and tolerance to, pesticides and anti malaria drugs, the range of many other pests and diseases such as Bluetongue, migrant moths, Old World bollworm,cottony cushion scale, oak processionary moth, and mountain pine beetle have been shown to be increasing in range. North american corn crops face increased predation, due to overwintering predators. Aquatic diseases have also been seen to be expanding, and red tides more frequent and severe. Though greater warmth can lengthen growing seasons, it can also change rainfall patterns. In many areas, the growing season is determined by the rain, and not by temperature. In north america, the best soil for agriculture lies in the United states. A warmer Canada would not be of much benefit, as most of it’s surface has been stripped of soil by glaciation. A much warmer north america, will likely be less productive, agriculturally.
Science shows without a doubt that ‘Global Warming’ is causing, and will continue to cause increased sea levels. The thermosteric sea level rise for 1993-98 amounts to 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/year, in agreement with the 3.2 ± 0.2 mm/year rate measured by Topex/Poseidon over the same time span. Now, 3.2mm per year may not sound like much, but over 50 or 100 years, that’s alarming!

Scientists have shown that ‘Global Warming’ is causing a dramatic acceleration of glacier retreat in Greenland and other places. There are several scientific studies that suggest that current rate of glacial retreat has not been seen as far back as current methods are able to detect. Though it would take many centuries to totally melt all of Greenland’s ice, the bulk of it could be gone by the end of this century.
Scientists suggest that ‘Global Warming’ will cause the Arctic to be ice free in the summer within decades. The present extent of Arctic ice is close to the surprisingly low extent of 2007. Sea ice extent is measured by the amount of water that is at least 15% covered by ice. A common misconception is that sea ice extent measures only “solid ice”. Extent can be greatly affected by wind. Ice volume, a much more telling measurement of sea temperature trends tells a more dire picture. Ice that makes it from one winter to the next is decreasing at an even faster rate than it’s southern most most range each year. This is a better gauge for predicting the coming ice free summers.

Scientists report that ‘Global Warming’ has caused, and will continue to cause extinctions. A recent study shows that 12% of Mexico’s lizards have been driven to extinction, and predicts a 20% lizard extinction rate by 2080. “We are actually seeing lowland species moving upward in elevation, slowly driving upland species extinct, and if the upland species can’t evolve fast enough then they’re going to continue to go extinct.” says one scientist.”The detailed study notes specifically that lizards that bear live young are particularly at risk of extinction, compared to those that lay eggs. ‘Live-bearers experience almost twice the risk of egg-layers largely because live-bearers have evolved lower body temperatures that heighten extinction risk,’ Sinervo said. ‘We are literally watching these species disappear before our eyes.'” (1)

Scientists suggest that more CO2 in the ocean is causing ‘ocean acidification’. To be more precise the PH level of the oceans is becoming less alkaline, causing stress to certain species. Though warmer oceans can hold less CO2 than cold oceans, the carbon content of the oceans continues to increase, as they are not completely saturated.
The ‘hiding the decline’, debacle has been fully investigated, and shown to be a tempest in a teacup, blown out of proportion by denialists who are grasping at straws. Freedom of information requests for raw data, have been spurious and vexatious. The targets of these requests have been releasing all of the data that they have the legal rights to release, and are continuing to seek license to release the remaining data. Some of their copies of the data were lost when they updated their computers, but all of the original date remains in the hands of those who provided it to them. The peer review process though acrimonious at times ensures that “junk science” does not get passed off as sound. Though politicians will use just about any excuse to pass legislation that is favourable to their “supporters”, the fact that some use global warming to their own ends, in no way makes the facts any less true.
1 ScienceDaily May 13 2010

May 28, 2010 at 12:24 am

Some scientists suggest

Which ones? Mostly ones who rely on government funding.

I only have time for a couple of these – someone else can pick up where I left off…

Like most of these discussions, sea level rise alarm comes down to a degree of exaggeration. While progressives are using numbers like METERS of sea level rise per century, you realize that you cannot get away with such nonsense and use millimeters.

The IPCC AR4 rough average MODEL prediction is a 12 inch rise in a century (Asumming their AGW predictions are correct which they obviously are not because even Phil Jones, one of your heros, admitted there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years.)

The average daily tide changes more than twice that amount on rough average and we deal with it EVERY DAY! A six inch rise in 50 years is simply not ‘alarming’ at all and most people are NOT going to even notice it or be affected by it in any way. At the peak of a storm surge, instead of your house being 2 feet under water, it will be 2.5 feet under water 50 years from now – so what, termites may have already eaten it by then, they are the greater threat. Buy flood insurance or don’t build in low areas near the coastline.

Scientists have shown that ‘Global Warming’ is causing a dramatic acceleration of glacier retreat in Greenland and other places.

Recent Grace microgravity measurements from space have determined that Greenland is losing –239 ± 23 cubic kilometers of ice per year. Let’s see… Greenland has about 3 MILLION km^3 ice so it will be ice free within 12,000 years at that rate. OH SUCH A BIG WORRY!! (How come nobody 15,000 years ago saw this coming?)

Exaggeration, misrepresentation, dilution of key facts, etc. – and NONE of it proves that humans are causing it anyway. (still no “hot spot”!)

Progressives are DESPERATELY trying to hang on the idea of there being a CRISIS because, without one, nobody would listen to their idea that we need a world socialist government – one they want to have so THEY can hold power over us under the guise of ‘saving the planet’.

May 28, 2010 at 4:02 am

PragmaticJim: The targets of these requests have been releasing all of the data that they have the legal rights to release, and are continuing to seek license to release the remaining data.

That’s just more BS. For three years NASA has been stone-walling CEI’s request for NASA documents. Obviously they are hiding something they do NOT want the public to see and, they have virtually admitted it by claiming that the information shouldn’t even be in their possession:

NASA originally denied access to the records (which they are still withholding) on the grounds that taxpayer-funded scientists were actually moonlighting and so the documents were not really the government’s property.

WHY does non-government propaganda even exist on taxpayer provided computers at NASA in the first place? Sounds familiar huh?

May 28, 2010 at 10:35 am

The IPCC AR4 rough average MODEL prediction is a 12 inch rise in a century

The majority of scientists studying this, including those involved in making that prediction, now say that that estimate is almost certainly far short of the most probable rate.

Recent Grace microgravity measurements from space have determined that Greenland is losing –239 ± 23 cubic kilometers of ice per year.

The research article that you cherry picked that quote from concludes that the melting rate is accelerating. Do you understand what that means?

their idea that we need a world socialist government –

Paranoid schizophrenic much?

For three years NASA has been stone-walling CEI’s request for NASA documents.

CEI ? That bastion of truth, understanding and upholding the rights of the common man?

In March 1996, CEI’s Michelle Malkin and Michael Fumento published “Rachel’s Folly,” which claims that dioxin is good for you. CEI’s Jonathan Tolman (who holds a bachelor’s degree in political science), published a study that month titled “Nature’s Hormone Factory,” claiming that naturally-occurring chemicals produced by plants and other living organisms are as dangerous as industrial chemicals. In December of that year, CEI submitted comments opposing the EPA’s proposed air quality rule to limit particulate emissions, claiming that “the EPA has failed to consider whether the proposed standard may actually increase mortality due to reductions in disposable income that compliance efforts may produce. … “

Sourcewatch

I wouldn’t give those guys the time of day if they had a court order.

May 28, 2010 at 1:45 pm

Name them. I notice you conveniently IGNORED what Phil Jones had to say. “No significant global warming in 15 years.” Gee, was THAT what your precious computer the models predicted? I don’t think so Jim, (may I call you Jim? You sound like James Hansen…) And if you try to blame a ‘preponderance of unforseen natural cooling factors that are temporarily overpowering the man-made forcings” blah blah blah .. you lose because that then also explains the warming period before 2000.

Give me a number. What are we talking about? 12000 years accelerating down to what? 9000 years? I better get started building an ark, (just give up.) Several glaciers in the Himalayas are actually increasing by the way but I assume you already know that and have some quick answer to dismiss the significance of that too?

Tell me that the Club of Rome knows is paying you to come here and post stuff like that? Seriously though – is someone paying you to shill this hoax or did you make a really bad investment in carbon credits?

CEI ? That bastion of truth, understanding and upholding the rights of the common man? … I wouldn’t give those guys the time of day if they had a court order.

So much for explaining NASA’s refusal to obey the law. (Maybe I should have just asked you for a strawnman directly?) So their civil right to a FOI request is less equal than yours because you say so? That basically exposes what you are all about. I hope that you are the first to lose your 1st Amendment right when the globalists who you are defending don’t need you anymore. Weren’t the first ones among those Stalin sent off the Gulags the same intellectuals who really believed that Marx was on to something good?

Did you ever wonder HOW civilization didn’t just survive the Medieval Warming Period – it FLOURISHED!

Hey and where that’s HOT SPOT? (and all that ‘missing’ ERB heat now that I think about it?) You avoided that one too.

May 28, 2010 at 8:52 pm

I notice you conveniently IGNORED what Phil Jones had to say. “No significant global warming in 15 years.”

A famous misquote often heralded by distorters of the facts.
What Phil Jones actually said was “Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.” The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. Had the question included the previous 20 years, the answer would have been “There has been statistically significant global warming over the last 20 years”. Fluctuations in solar output average around 11 years. El nino/la nina also have multi year cycles. Effects from volcanic activity can also last for many years. That is why an honest climatologist will be very hesitant to claim that any period less than 20 years is “statistically significant”, but you knew that, didn’t you?
I could say a few words about Stalin, Hitler, and the Club of Rome, or trade ad hominim attacks, but they don’t call me Pragmatic Jim for nothing.

May 28, 2010 at 8:56 pm

I’m sorry for the confusion, I missed the close quote in my previous post. This is the part from Phil Jones’ mouth

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.” The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

May 29, 2010 at 2:01 am

Had the question included the previous 20 years, the answer would have been “There has been statistically significant global warming over the last 20 years”.

Yes but had the question been,”Has there been statistically significant global warming in the USA over the last 76 years?”, we’re clearly back to ‘no’ again. Hmmm, let’s see… 76 years has got to be more ‘statistically significant’ then 20 years right?

May 29, 2010 at 2:03 am

(I used the image tool for an USHCN graph in that prior post but it did not display on my computer. Others mileage may vary?)

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/mean2.5X3.5_pg.gif

May 29, 2010 at 3:30 am

Has there been statistically significant global warming in the USA over the last 76 years?”

Since when has the United States been a globe?
You’re grasping at straws.

May 29, 2010 at 5:01 am

I just couldn’t happen to locate one a world chart that included RAW data like that one. Are you implying that US temperatures varied WILDLY from world data? I thought that you would know better than to claim something like that when we’re considering trends over many years of time so … who is really “grasping at straws” here?

May 29, 2010 at 11:45 am

Are you implying that US temperatures varied WILDLY from world data?

I doubt that you are unaware that there are great differences in the amount of warming that various regions experience, as the the global average rises. As the average rises 1 degree, some areas will warm as much as 7 or more degrees, but yes, you did know that. You have mentioned it in this discussion, only a few days ago. You do know don’t you, that the United States comprises of only 2% of the earth’s surface? Less than significant warming, over 2% of the surface, + significant, and very significant warming over the rest of the the earth = significant warming.

May 29, 2010 at 9:27 pm

I doubt that you are unaware that there are great differences in the amount of warming that various regions experience, as the the global average rises.

OH! Then you are apparently willing to dismiss Keith Briffa’s YAD061 data then as well? If you are going to dismiss one the largest instrumented temperature data sets, the USA, then surely you wouldn’t rely on proxy data from a SINGLE TREE from the Yamal Penninula?

You CANNOT have it both ways!

You have painted yourself into a corner. A huge amount of climate
data is coming from single places such as Briffa tree rings or Vostok ice cores or Greenland ice cores – AND THEY ARE GENERALLY ACCEPTED by scientists inside and outside of the IPCC. So are the instrumented data sets from the USA, (expect by you of course…)

The problem is manipulation of data by omission and ‘adjustments’ being made by the alarmists desperate to claim there is a looming catastrophe. And with Briffa’s data, he and Mann WERE CAUGHT RED HANDED using a single tree simply because it matched the data they wanted to advance their alarm hoax.

If imminent catastrophe was at our door step when alarmists like Hansen started predicting it back in the 80’s then it surely damn well would have raised it’s horns by now 30 years later – IT DID NOT.

‘UNPRECEDENTED’ global warming does not exist anywhere but in your mind.

Even if it did – it STILL would do nothing to prove humans are responsible for it anyway.

Baa Humbug

May 29, 2010 at 11:25 pm

As the average rises 1 degree, some areas will warm as much as 7 or more degrees

So name one region that’s warmed by 7DegC or more. Make it easy on yourself, name one that’s warmed by 5DegC or more.

Think MikeM got you cornered.

May 30, 2010 at 12:57 am

Earth to Mike.
YAD061 is one tree out of 10 in one area. It was used as proxy temperature data for that region, for the last 2 centuries. It’s data diverges from the other 9, only in the end of the last century, when we have have real thermometers, and don’t even need proxy data for a good sample of global temperatures. From this you extrapolate that the entire hockey stick is based on one tree?
Pull your head out of your ass, and we can talk some more.
Baa Humbug,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=4&sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=04&year1=2010&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
You can see here that the month of April showed warming as high as 8.6 degrees for northern Canada, all of the arctic, and parts of northern Africa.

May 30, 2010 at 4:25 am

You can see here that the month of April showed warming as high as 8.6 degrees for northern Canada, all of the arctic, and parts of northern Africa.

Everyone, (excepting you), knows that the polar regions of that GISS chart are RUBBISH, (because the whole area is actually very small and all dependent on a single station at Svalbard that always measures high probably because it is at an AIRPORT!).

Here’s the actual data; arctic temperature is currently right at its FORTY year average. Want to argue with the Danish now? Here’s another chart, that GISS data minus the UAH satellite data. About a .6 degree difference right now.

It’s data diverges from the other 9, only in the end of the last century, when we have have real thermometers…

..real thermometers measuring growing UHI in growing CITIES across the world. Do you have any idea how many RURAL temperature monitoring stations have been CLOSED since the early 90’s?

It’s ONE tree! He picked ONE tree over the others because it seemed to match data from somewhere else that he assumes is correct, (big assumptions = BAD SCIENCE!). If you put them all together you get a curve that looks like this.

It’s SCAM, they needed to ‘hide the decline’ and that’s how they did it.

May 30, 2010 at 5:38 am

37 stations. Show amplified warming in the arctic.

Multiple data sets support increased arctic warming

I looked at the data from DMI “the Danish”. It shows a warming trend for the arctic, especially in the fall winter and spring. I won’t argue with them either.

real thermometers measuring growing UHI in growing CITIES across the world. Do you have any idea how many RURAL temperature monitoring stations have been CLOSED since the early 90’s?

Yes, not because the New World Order decreed that all scientists systematically start tinkering with thermometers to make the the world seem warmer, but because they were redundant, inaccurate, or no longer funded. There have been several recent studies regarding the urban heat island theory. They all show that Watts was worried for nothing. Studies also show that models used to extrapolate temperatures for areas more than 100s of miles from the nearest thermometer are very accurate.

It’s ONE tree! He picked ONE tree over the others

Um, no, he did not. He used 10 trees for the data set being questioned by McIntyre. The blogger,JonJayRay, whom you seem to trust more than peer reviewed science, has tricked you into believing that Briffa used only one tree, by putting it in all capital letters in the title of his blog. Did you even read the blog? (not that blogs carry any weight in the minds of skeptical thinkers). Do you understand the context of the tree ring data, with regards to the divergence of data from that single tree and all proxy records for the last 2000 years?

You may want to give your closing remarks, as I am almost finished reading the hyperbolic trash that you have wrapped your position with.

May 30, 2010 at 10:22 am

PragmaticJim: #122
May 30th, 2010 at 5:38 am

Well Jim, the paper you linked to (37 stations) Chylek et al 2009 does indeed say the Arctic warmed more than the global average, well done.

In the following analysis we confirm that the Arctic has indeed warmed during the 1970–2008 period by a factor of two to three faster than the global mean in agreement with model predictions but the reasons may not be entirely anthropogenic.

The paper states a warming of 0.75K in 20th C. two to three times that would be 1.5 to 2.2, nowhere near 5 to 7DegC
Lets see what else the paper says. From their opening paragraph…

Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline
circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.

And the following from their conclusion….

Our analysis suggests that the ratio of the Arctic to global temperature change varies on multi-decadal time scale. The commonly held assumption of a factor of 2–3 for the Arctic amplification has been valid only for the current warming period 1970–2008. The Arctic region did warm considerably faster during the 1910–1940 warming compared to the current 1970–2008 warming rate (Table 1).
During the cooling from 1940–1970 the Arctic amplification was extremely high, between 9 and 13. The Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation multi-decadal variability is suggested as a major cause of Arctic temperature variation.

Considering that the rate of warming AND cooling prior to 1970, (before the CO2 affect era) was much larger according to the authors, we may conclude (from this paper) that CO2 actually reduces this amplification can we not? If not, then we must conclude CO2 has nil or negligeble role to play.

Kinda leaves the AGW hypothesis legless doesn’t it?

May 30, 2010 at 11:52 am

Humbug, It’s good to see a skeptic who has at least some level of confidence in peer reviewed scientific study. Thank you for your thoughtful investigation, and comments.

we may conclude (from this paper) that CO2 actually reduces this amplification can we not?

That’s a pretty big leap, considering that we must also consider Pinatubo, el nino/la nina, solar cycles, etc.
What we can conclude however, is that there have been differences in warming/cooling rates of the arctic to those of the global average, by a factor of 2-3 and 9-13. Far from the homogeneous rate that Mike suggested, and much more in line with my suggestion of a possible factor of 7.

May 30, 2010 at 3:24 pm

PragmaticJim: #124
May 30th, 2010 at 11:52 am

Yes it certainly was a big leap. But that throw away line wasn’t the important point I made was it?

Peer review is like democracy, it’s the worst form of paper publication except for all the rest.

mogar

May 30, 2010 at 3:44 pm

More than a little surprised we are still beating this dead horse. The one thing that has not to my knowledge been explained is how tree ring data is such an excellent proxy for centuries of global temperature data but yet has such bad correlation with actual thermometer readings in the present and near present data.

I think that a theory that has yet to predict ONE DAM THING is a good candidate for the trash heap.

May 31, 2010 at 1:38 am

…has such bad correlation with actual thermometer readings in the present and near present data.

Also, present and near present correlation strikes me as am alarmist’s “damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t” conundrum anyway. In general increased CO2 and increased temperature tend to BOTH benefit tree growth. So… if CO2 was additionally a significant factor in causing increased temperature as they claim – then how can those two variables be separated out and assigned their respective amount of affect in near present tree ring data compared to older tree ring data?

I’m just asking the question, when you look at tree rings from within the last 50 years or so that are fatter than ones before them during a cooler and less CO2 period, is there something about it them screams “percentage X was from increased CO2 and the balance from increased temperature” ? How do you find ‘X’ and with how much confidence? (humorous relief – “Here it is.”)

It’s a valid question and I haven’t come across anyone to dismiss it. Here’s one comparison of CO2 and temperature correlation that appears to put some weight behind the idea – that ‘X’ is over 50%.

The next graph is the reverse situation. It shows the 30 tree-ring time series with the best correlations to CO2 in descending order. As above, each of these correlations is matched with the correlation to the instrumental temperature record. This time the thing that jumps out is that the correlation to CO2 is better in every single case. And these correlations to CO2 are not just a little better, they are a lot better.

Another study I found from 1997 concluded that the evidence of CO2 fertilization was inconclusive, (thus leaving the door open).

May 31, 2010 at 3:53 am

Mike @ 127
Have you ever noticed how the AGE proponents like to make simplistic statements about their evidence that global warming is due to manmade CO2 such as, the ice caps are melting and point at temperature data graphs which of course proves only that it is warmer than some other period of time not that man made CO2 is responsible. And, at the same time when the same simplistic statements are made that for instance there has been a recent downturn in the global temperature and polar ice is returning they throw their hands spasmodically all over the place and breathlessly say “Oh you can’t say that! There are all these other variables involved, Pinatubo, El Niño/La Nina, solar cycles, etc!”. It’s as if there are only other factors involved when the data doesn’t support their position. But, when the data does support them its all about man made CO2 no other factors are involved.

You could run into more actual science at a carnival than you will if you spend all day talking to the AGW crowd.

Ed West

June 19, 2010 at 9:25 am

The rich need something to make money from that will go on indefinitely. Enter climate change.

Alarmists? Who needs garden variety alarmists when you have the Evening News? It is their job to frighten everyone every day, or as often as possible. That way, you don’t change the channel which ensures you won’t miss the most important part of the news — the commercials.

And Carbon Credits. Beyond daft. I’ll sell my Carbon Credits to your country so your factories can continue belching smoke. Sounds like extortion to me, but instead, it’s called Saving the Planet.

Yes, the climate, always changing it is. Yodel

Richard Lindzen - Page 4 - TheEnvironmentSite.org Discussion and Information Forums

August 14, 2010 at 11:34 am

[…] side want to rock the boat by allowing themselves and thier claims to be publicly cross examined. . Massive climate funding exposed « JoNova Wasnt it Lindzen that was supposed to be profiting by climate change ? __________________ […]

[US News] American Museum of Natural History - TheEnvironmentSite.org Discussion and Information Forums

August 19, 2010 at 1:53 pm

[…] .It comes from you and me Wombat and the sums involved are truly vast ! This is just the US. Massive climate funding exposed « JoNova __________________ Examples of herdlike mentality in our world today this are manifested in our […]

What's your stance on Global Warming? - Page 3 - TheEnvironmentSite.org Discussion and Information Forums

August 20, 2010 at 5:35 am

[…] Bob, follow the money! Indeed . It seems you are learning Thaum Massive climate funding exposed « JoNova As you can see you badly need to get yourself onto this climate bandwagon before the wheels […]

September 1, 2010 at 12:15 pm

Hi Mark M.
If the cap fits Sir. Albert, then so be it.
My book definitely shows that there is a direct relationship between Magnetism and Gravity as being the Electrons orbital pattern and its relationship to the Nucleus. Believe it or not, the ratio figures do not lie for the 103 accepted prime elements.

Greg Savko

September 15, 2010 at 1:28 am

great article, i just bookmarked it for future reference. i’d love to read on future posts. how can i set the RSS again? thanks!

September 15, 2010 at 10:05 am

[ A further remark about our orbit.
Consider sitting on the Moon’s surface with a magnetic measuring meter and observing the changed conditions of this meter every fourteen days. You would say to yourself, the Earth is switching its magnetic polarity every fourteen day. NOW look at our Earth as it swings up and over the Sun’s orbital path. Its orbital pattern is similar to what the Moons orbital path is but has a longer duration path. It only needs a variation of one degree to cover this thirty degrees oscillation difference of the Sun’s Magnetic surface, there fore I say that our Sun is not switching its magnetic polarity every eleven years but it is our Earth is observing this from a distance and it gives to impression that the Sun is switching its magnetic polarity. Now I put it to the readers. Is this not a natural sequence of nature that is a cyclic natural event and this is the original perception of all climate changes over the past decades and this can be seen as being and occurring as late as 450,000 yeas ago with averages ranging from nine to fifteen year cycles. Humans were not around then and Carbon Dioxide was then, much higher than now. Please think carefully about what the IPCC has presented to the world and ask, WHY? The answer has been expressed in the above comments and is shown in the Graph at the head of this debate.

Formal complaints against Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg | Watts Up With That?

November 16, 2010 at 4:27 am

[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/ […]

Tim F Ball - Page 4 - TheEnvironmentSite.org Environment Forum

December 6, 2010 at 8:02 am

[…] in some kind of proper perspective . Your side has $1000 dollars for every skeptic one spent. Massive climate funding exposed « JoNova …..and you'll never match those figures As for renewables/clean energy funding. Oil […]

IBD editorial on the (non)falsifiability of global warming - FlyerTalk Forums

December 29, 2010 at 7:13 am

[…] that all the money other governments have spent you're very easily into the hundreds of billions. http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/mas…nding-exposed/ […]

Knowledgeability vs ignorance - Page 45 - Politics & Current Affairs Forum

February 17, 2011 at 3:52 am

[…] in some kind of proper perspective. And what is it exactly we have gotten for all this outlay ? Massive climate funding exposed « JoNova Its clear that the real cheesecake in science is to be had by towing the party line on AGW . It […]

Global Warming Insanity - Page 3 - Patrol 4x4 - Nissan Patrol Forum

March 25, 2011 at 11:11 am

[…] […]

“Global Warmers” destroying World Economy! « The Big Green Lie

September 4, 2011 at 1:26 am

[…] billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 […]

Weltwirtschaftskrise 2012 - Seite 3 - Aktienboard

September 10, 2011 at 8:01 pm

Out-Manned, but what happened to the science? | Watts Up With That?

October 6, 2011 at 1:34 am

[…] A few points via Jo Nova […]

The Climate Change Scare Machine — the perpetual self-feeding cycle of alarm | Set You Free News

October 7, 2011 at 9:53 pm

[…] US government has poured in $79 billion and then some. But the pro-scare funding is pervasive: for example — the Australian government […]

#Fakegate…comedy and entertainment | pindanpost

February 17, 2012 at 1:17 pm

[…] “Climate Money” 2009 […]

Warmer “Ethics” Leader Fakes Identity to Steal Documents | Climate Change Sanity

February 23, 2012 at 10:34 am

NASA GISS Director James Hansen Plays Climate Science Victimization Card.

April 21, 2012 at 1:40 am

[…] agencies. Oil and energy companies are the favorite target, but it’s laughable when compared with money spent by government agencies promoting the IPCC version of global warming. As Joanne Nova notes, […]

June 30, 2012 at 8:17 pm

Dear Editor,

This Carbon Tax is based on a fraudulent concept. Our seasons have always been initiated by the Earth’s oscillating orbit between the two magnetic Heliospheres from our Sun, and this relocation cycle has always been the reason for changes to our season.

Carbon Dioxide has had no influence in altering our Earth’s orbital position and has had no part in changing these seasons.

Thomas T S Watson
xxxxxxxxxx Street
xxxxxxxx
xxxx
Ph: **xx x xxxxxxx
Author of: A Fresh Approach to Magnetism (2006), Climate Change Explained by Magnetism? ISBN9780646477220, (2009). Co-Author with Dr Alberto Boretti of the University of Ballarat: ‘Is New Zealand Globally Warming?’ ,(2011) by InderScience Publishers, and ‘The Increditable Truth, Oceans are not Accelerating in Australia or in the World’, by Energy & Environmental Publishers (2012) and a financial nominee of “Worldwide, Who’s Who”

[I’ve removed your personal details. Not a good idea. Mod oggi]

Is there anything good about the carbon tax??????? - Page 6

July 9, 2012 at 9:50 pm

[…] acts like blanket of mud over open dispassionate analysis. Read the whole thing here http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/mas…nding-exposed/ There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than the carbon […]

Former Climate Alarmist Announces Conversion to climate skepticism

August 15, 2012 at 9:12 pm

a very inconvenient truth … | pindanpost

November 25, 2012 at 1:01 pm

[…] pays the pseudo-scientists? Almost all climate research funding is from government. What “climate thing? Climate change is occurring, has always occurred and will […]

Don’t talk to me about the science of climate change « Honest Architect

February 8, 2013 at 12:34 pm

[…] plausible motivation for this enormous deception (whether as a widespread desire for climate scientists to attract funding, part of an anti-globalisation ideology, an excuse for the left to de-industrialise the Western […]

Simon Conway-Smith

February 12, 2013 at 7:36 am

Philip @#1, You should also include the Churches, including the CofE. They have all swallowed the CAGW rhetoric hook, line and sinker.

For those in the Cambridge,UK vicinity, the ex-Archbishop, Rowan Williams, is hosting a seminar “Global Warming & Equitable Development: Ethical and Political Priorities” on March 6th, which is open to all and has Prof. Richard Lindzen on the panel. I would encourage as many climate sceptics/realists as possible to attend. More info at http://repealtheact.org.uk/blog/4477

The CSIRO sold us a PUP | tthomas061

February 13, 2013 at 9:21 pm

[…] [19] http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/ […]

Boxer’s carbon tax proposal would enrichen people already feeding from the public trough… meanwhile Suzanne Goldenberg bags her journalism skills | Watts Up With That?

February 15, 2013 at 4:26 am

[…] skeptic think tanks may have actually gotten a drop in the bucket of funding compared to all the billions of money poured down the climate research hole, we have a money and power grab move front and center by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca) and Bernie […]

Boxer’s Carbon Tax Proposal Would Enrichen People Already Feeding From the Public Trough… « Tarpon's Swamp

February 15, 2013 at 11:41 pm

[…] skeptic think tanks may have actually gotten a drop in the bucket of funding compared to all the billions of taxpayer money poured down the climate research hole, we have a money and power grab move front and center by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca) and Bernie […]

Money, Funding, Greenpeace, and Being Green Pays Rather Well.. « Another View on Climate

February 19, 2013 at 11:26 am

[…] from JoNova: Climate funding exposed and the SPPI article on Climate […]

Plus d'argent public pour les climatologues qui en vivent déjà | Contrepoints

February 23, 2013 at 1:07 am

[…] puissent bénéficier d’une goutte dans l'océan de financement habituellement reversé à coût de milliards dans l’abîme de la recherche sur le climat, nous assistons à une levée de moyens et de pouvoir de premier plan grâce à la sénatrice […]

Is Climate Change and Green Energy the biggest Fraud ever in the world?……you decide | The Big Green Lie

July 4, 2013 at 12:30 pm

[…] Massive climate funding exposed […]

Thomas Watson

July 19, 2013 at 7:23 pm

To all interested members who want to see the truth.

Is it not time for the real solution to Climate Change, to stand up, or what ever phrasing one wishes to believe it to be?

As a scientist, let me tell you what is actually happening to our universe. The public are being put under pressure to believe that the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as factual and correct. As a government body, we must obey everything they say about Carbon Dioxide. They say that Carbon Dioxide is the culprit of this Climate Change, and temperatures have risen since the ‘Industrial Revolution. They say that as a result that it has changed our seasons. I believe that this is scientifically untrue.

Now the Prime Minister of Australia is now saying that perhaps the opposition was right all along, and so I will scrap the Carbon Tax. What has happened to him? Is he opting for getting Labor back on track or is he just saying this to grab back some of the swinging voters.

My research of this formidable climate, found that over the last decade, the rise in temperature has stopped in 1998, and that Carbon Dioxide is still rising to its ultimate intensity of 400 parts per million, by volume, and this will continue naturally for the next ten odd decades.

To identify the real culprit for these seasonal change affects, I outline my researched understanding in the most simplistic manner available to me in this letter to the Editor.

As some of the learned members of the community will be aware, the Earth orbits within the Sun’s Magnetic Heliosphere. Our Sun naturally produces four magnetic polarities, the Earth is orbiting within these four polarities, and when in each sector, the seasons change every year. These magnetic influences change and produce our four seasons on Earth. On the 22 December 2012, our Sun completed its Precessional Cycle of 25, 920 years and our Earth became under an additional influence of yet another ‘Positive’ Magnetic influence that is naturally being generated from the Milky Way Galaxy. It is this total influence that our Earth is reacting to, as it orbits through these four magnetic sectors, and when entering each sector, there is an immediate magnetic reaction to Earth’s Magnetosphere and Atmosphere. These combined magnetic effects are changing our seasons. This magnetic affect also changes the Barometric Pressure systems, which has forwarded these cycle activity by 131 day since the 15 February 2001. This magnetic influence has made these Highs over the continent of Australia in generating the rain conditions we are currently experiencing in 2013, and because of this natural reactive effect, initiates the clouds to be pushed into a lower altitude. When conditions are right for the particular seasonal cycle where the Earth is orbiting through, this magnetic energy is currently initiating these very cool conditions in 2013, because of the Sun’s position within the Milky Way Galaxy.

My discovery of this magnetic combined interaction accounts for the understanding why our Moon has dramatically gone further into space, is because the far side of the Moon has a “Negative” Magnetic emission and is being attracted by the Sun’s influence having to orbit through this new Positive Magnetic force.

Wake up Australia, before it is too late. The IPCC is wrong, the Carbon Tax is wrong, and I am prepared to show them that they are, indeed wrong, and must apologize and compensate the world that they have made a gross error of judgement.

As Professor Samuel Miller, might have said. “Believe it or Not. That is the question.”

I invite you to look at: http://www.ttsw.bigblog.com.au for more details of what has been accomplished.

Dennis Wingo

August 5, 2013 at 6:22 am

This is what president Eisenhower had to say on this subject.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

That day has arrived.

Victims of a massive global warming fraud | FAUXGREEN

August 28, 2013 at 11:09 pm

[…] Scary stuff, and most of us are completely unaware of what is really going on. The fix is in, Big Money is being made and spent, a good part of it coming out of your pocket. The Blanding’s […]

Victims of a massive global warming fraud | Wind Turbine Wildlife Hell

August 29, 2013 at 2:24 pm

Are Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather” Claims And Tactics Criminal?

November 14, 2013 at 9:54 am

[…] pays the pseudo-scientists? Almost all climate research funding is from […]

Climate Science’s Constant Appeals To Authority Only Confirm Its Total Fallacy

December 18, 2013 at 6:40 pm

[…] The “Appeal To Authority” and “Ad Hominem” attack fallacies are also used to put down the contribution of skeptical blogs and those that write for and comment on them. It is as if those that do not “believe” are refused a license to think. This is the crux of the problem. This is the reaction of the religious, not scientists. No other scientific field so denies the amateur a place. Why is this so? Follow the money. […]

Junaid Ahmed

December 21, 2013 at 6:35 am

thank you 🙂

Warmists burn a billion a day | CACA

December 22, 2013 at 1:36 am

[…] Massive climate funding exposed « JoNova […]

Rape, Muder, Chocolate Shortages: Is There Anything Climate Change DOESN’T Cause? | The Daily Drudge Report

February 28, 2014 at 10:13 pm

[…] You try, as patiently as possible, to spell out the facts. (In the case of Sen Whitehouse’s claims above, for example, you might note that the money spent on climate skepticism is minuscule relative to the epic sums spent by the US government …) […]

Dan

April 14, 2014 at 10:25 am

I was wondering about the graph it seems to show millions down the side, times a bit over 7000 up the scale is that not 7000 million dollars which is in fact 7 billion, not 70 billion.
————————

The graph shows annual funding. So $7b is accurate pa. $79 b referred to cumulative. – Jo

JoNova

Recent Posts

169 comments to Massive climate funding exposed

JoNova

Find Things

Register for emails

Recent Comments

Statistics

Handbooks

Most commented

Archives

Tags

Categories

JoNova

Recent Posts

Massive climate funding exposed

The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – Trillions to come

The Summary

Read the Full Report at the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Billions in the Name of “Climate”

The bottom line

U.S. Government Funding for Climate Change Related Activities 1989-2009

References:

Climate Money: PARTS 1- 4.

169 comments to Massive climate funding exposed

JoNova

Find Things

Register for emails

Recent Comments

Statistics

Handbooks

Most commented

Archives

Tags

Links

Categories