Follow the (Climate Change) Money
The first iron rule of American politics is: Follow the money. This explains, oh, about 80 percent of what goes on in Washington.
Shortly after the latest โChicken Littleโ climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded that the sky is falling is that they are paid handsomely to do so.
I said, โIn America and around the globe governments have created a multibillion dollar climate change industrial complex.โ And then I added: โA lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.โ According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, โFederal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.โ
This doesnโt mean that the planet isnโt warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather. Why doesnโt anyone in the media ever mention this?
But when I lifted this hood, it incited more hate mail than from anything Iโve said on TV or written. Could it be that this rhetorical missile hit way too close to home?
How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think tanks by suggesting that their findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the โsettled scienceโ of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.
Apparently, if you take money from the private sector to fund research, your work is inherently biased, but if you get multimillion-dollar grants from Uncle Sam, you are as pure as the freshly fallen snow.
How big is the climate change industrial complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago, Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obamaโs first term.
That didnโt include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power โ so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive โgreenโ energy.
Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study that found that โglobal investment in climate changeโ reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending โfalls far short of whatโs neededโ a number estimated at $5 trillion.
For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimerโs.
The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.
This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often donโt appreciate. If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, youโre probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isnโt happening.
But if youโve built bogus models that predict the crisis is getting worse by the day, then step right up and get a multimillion-dollar grant.
Now hereโs the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industryโs own admission, there has been almost no progress worldwide in combatting climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse, and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.
Has there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had such miniscule returns on investment? After three decades of โresearchโ the only โsolutionโ is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which is like saying that we should stop growing food.
Really? The greatest minds of the world entrusted with hundreds of billions of dollars can only come up with a solution that would entail the largest government power grab in world history, shutting down industrial production (just look at the catastrophe in Germany when they went all in for green energy), and throwing perhaps billions of human beings into poverty? If thatโs the remedy, I will take my chances on a warming planet.
President Donald Trump should tell these so-called scientists that โyouโre fired.โ And we taxpayers should demand our money back.
Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation and an economic consultant with FreedomWorks. He is the co-author of โFueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy.โ To find out more about Stephen Moore and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Andy Rowlands
| #
Very interesting article Stephen.
Reply
Graeme Mochrie
| #
Follow the money Stephen, but follow it all. As well as government funding there must be even more loans made by financial institutions. These institutions are all looking for good returns on their investments, so we will have to believe that CO2 is a bogieman otherwise why would we buy expensive electricity with unreliable generation in preference?
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
The hundreds of billions squandered on climaclownology could have provided fresh water for every human on the planet. The trillions squandered on solar, wind and biofuels could have provided reliable Carbon energy for every human on the planet. Obviously, Chicken Little science and Jack in the Beanstalk solutions are more important than humans.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Pfffftttโฆ bullshit !
Reply
Matt
| #
Hey Squidly.
You are too polite.
You should have written what you really think.
Me too.
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi Doug.
You are firing bullets with a very bent barreled firearm. Regularly.
I have an cursed gift for sniffing out rats, incompetence and corruption.
Follow the money is %100 correct.
I have stated often I am no scientist although I have way more common sense than some. I do not repeatedly shoot myself in the foot.
Matt
Reply
Matt
| #
Curious too make a reply too a comment that has been removed. Must be a weather anomaly.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Iโve read all of your diatribe Dougy .. again .. bullshitโฆ
Reply
Rikster
| #
Hereโs an accurate copy of the graphโฆ notice the โobservedโ line:
https://theruggedindividualist.wordpress.com/2019/09/22/lies-damn-lies-and-models-is-the-correct-quote-for-global-warming-alarmism-part-ii/?fbclid=IwAR11wxaq7TmtUCxxoisyemF7Nazi1Fuvx1smmQf30H0Q0OqTGVObP4BCqRg
Reply
Rikster
| #
Hereโs an accurate copy of the graphโฆ notice the โobservedโ line:
https://theruggedindividualist.wordpress.com/2019/09/22/lies-damn-lies-and-models-is-the-correct-quote-for-global-warming-alarmism-part-ii/?fbclid=IwAR11wxaq7TmtUCxxoisyemF7Nazi1Fuvx1smmQf30H0Q0OqTGVObP4BCqRg
Reply