Do you remember when global-warming alarmists predicted that snow was becoming a thing of the past? Well, global-warming alarmists probably don’t want you to remember that. A failed prediction is not the sort of thing that helps global-warming alarmists to obtain government grants.
Yes, there is money to be made in the AGW-Alarmism industry, as detailed in a 2009 Science & Public Policy Institute report title Climate Money, written by Australian scientist Joanne Nova.
Here is an excerpt from that report:
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 paper’s findings are illustrated by the following cartoon.
Yep, the expression “follow the money” applies to global-warming alarmists, too.
Scientists on the AGW-Alarmism payroll depend on climate models to convince politicians to keep the money flowing. Well, Dr. Tim Ball has something to say about climate models:
Man-made global warming is real, because it was humans who created the idea and proved, independent of nature, that human activity was the cause. It is a real idea; it is not real in fact. It is in the same context as Goethe’s comment that “The unnatural, that too is natural.” Proponents of the idea believe it’s real, because they created an imaginary world called a computer model. It proved the idea was real, because they claimed the model represented the real world. Naturally, in this unreal real world, the science is settled, the debate is over. Nowhere is this more narrowly defined and vigorously promoted as real than in government and our schools.
As it turns out, Mother Nature doesn’t abide by the IPCC’s climate models.
In order for a hypothesis to be scientific, it has to be falsifiable, and it has to be allowed to fail whenever Mother Nature contradicts it.
Proponents of the AGW hypothesis are doing their best to make it unfalsifiable, which is why they want us to believe that …
… “warmer temperatures = global warming”.
… but also “record cold temperatures = global warming”.
… “little snow = global warming”.
… but also “record snowfall = global warming”.
Why? Joanne Nova explains why:
How many experts would go out of their way to make their own expertise and training less relevant? With funding hinged on proving that carbon controls the climate and therefore that climate science itself is critically important, it’s a self-sanctioning circle of vested interests. Yes, smart climate scientists are employable in other fields. But if voters suddenly realized carbon emissions had a minor role and humans have little influence, thousands of people would have to change something about their employment, and change is painful. In any industry, it’s impossible to argue that the specialists would prefer to have half the funding and half the status. Most of them either won’t get the next pay-rise, could lose their employment, or at least some spending power. They don’t get the upgrade of equipment they want, or they just lose status, because, well, climatology is “important”, but if we can’t change the weather, we are not inviting said experts onto our committees and to as many conferences.