Reblogged from Bishop Hill, this is a graphic by Josh 153 comparing the budget of the Heartland Institute (less than U.S.$10 million) to the budgets of the major government groups engaged in promoting AGW claims in the U.S. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - U.S.$437 million; Department of Energy - U.S.$627 million; National Aeronautics and Space Administration - U.S.$438 million; National Science Foundation - U.S.$480 million; Department of Agriculture - U.S.$159 million; Environmental Protection Agency - U.S.$169 million; Department of Interior - U.S.$171 million).Look again at Michael Turton's take on the scientists working through the Heartland Institute:
"...the "scientists" who attack the science are paid hacks and whores.."
But, what do these major governmental groups have to gain by lying about global warming?
ReplyDeleteFor christ's sake...
ReplyDeleteLess than what you would have to gain by paying attention to what is actually said.
Get this: I'm going on chalk & blackboard duty for you now even though I pulled a muscle in my back earlier tonight and should really be soaking in the bath tub...
The argument is that because the question of AGW was politicized almost from the beginning, so the uncertainty in both the science and the modelling has been ignored or played down both by the press and by many of the scientists themselves (not all - there have been exceptions and people who have changed their minds). So it is not that all of the scientists and government groups "lied" per se (although Peter Gleick admitted to having done so), it is that many of them exaggerated the scientific support both for the AGW hypothesis and, more especially, the strength of the models upon which the predictions of catastrophe were based. In the case of some proponents of CAGW (e.g. Michael Turton) that exaggeration is so bad as to be obviously fraudulent and absurd - which is the real reason he banned me (because I'd dress him down on all of these points). And then in addition to all of that, anyone daring to disagree with the "consensus" of "settled science" has been outcast and villified in disgraceful terms.
As to the point of the question itself - what the vested interests are - it must be borne in mind that the accusation I am making is not one of totally insincere cynicism (although that may be true in some quarters), but of a fidelity corrupted by the promise of action through political power. In addition to the vast sums of money, and psychologically perhaps far more important in individual cases, is the prestige of the project fed through its' ramified connections to political power and amplified by the desire to be perceived by others as working for the common good.
It's like Popper always said - it's not that there aren't enough of us willing to do good, it's that too many of us are often too liable to err in the pursuit of the good.