Below is a cautionary tale about Science and the Climate Industry: It is no more infallible or necessarily unbiased than any other large, political, well-connected and well-funded group. If Shakespeare were alive today, he would be neither shocked nor speechless….
Don’t Be Naive Enough to Believe the Climate Industry Is Incorruptible
Posted on June 5, 2015 by Rob Knowles
Follow the money. More importantly, follow the logic. That’s all it takes to see where corruption in the climate industry.
“I have never known so much naive conviction allied to greater intellectual poverty.” – Claude Levi-Strauss
A while back, I overheard a conversation between two people. One person said that they had no idea what Obamacare really was, but they were singing up for it anyway. This person then asked the other “I just know people keep saying it’s so bad, but it don’t know why.” Their friend replied–who had previously indicated he also had no idea what Obamacare really entailed: “I really just think they’re trying to do good.”
This is naïveté. It’s a belief in the inherent goodness of someone or something without having put even a modicum of research into the person or subject. It’s a roll of the intellectual dice based on what someone “feels.” It’s wrong; naïveté in one subject often perpetuates naïveté in other subjects. Example: global warming—sorry, climate change—sorry, climate disruption.
I hear it all the time—and I mean ALL THE FREAKING TIME: “The science is settled.” Then I ask: “You really don’t believe anyone has a vested interest in the perpetuation of these ideas?” And they usually reply incredulously with something along the lines of: “Why would they? They’re just trying to save the environment.” It’s like a tautology. They’re trying to save the environment, therefore the the environment must be in trouble…because they’re trying to save it.
Well, according to Steve Milloy of Breitbart, allegedly “independent” Harvard and Syracuse University studies supporting the EPA and the global warming/climate change/climate disruption narrative may have been influenced. Put on a pearl necklace, because you’re gonna need to clutch it:
“An online search of EPA’s web site revealed that Syracuse’s Driscoll has previously involved as a principal investigator in studies that received over $3.6 million in research grants from EPA. Co-author Dallas Burtraw, a researcher at the think tank Resources for the Future, had been involved in previous EPA grants totaling almost $2 million. Harvard co-author Jonathan I. Levy had been involved in over $9.5 million worth of grants. Co-author Joel Schwartz, also of Harvard, had been previously involved in over $31 million worth of grants from EPA.”
Wait, so they received money from the agency whose notions they are propping up with their studies? Huh, that seems totally above board. Hang on–gasp! *clutches previously mentioned pearls*
Yeah, the climate initiative isn’t some purist “SCIEEEENCE!” It’s an economic industry, just like everything else. Nothing is pure, yet the climate narrative is just assumed to be so, like the conversation I overheard regarding Obamacare. I think they’re just trying help people. I think the environmentalists are just trying to save the planet. What other interest could they possibly have?
People have been brainwashed into believing that environmentalism is the only field in the history of the universe that has been untouched by corruption. It’s clean of self-interest. That brainwashing has been wildly successful. Meanwhile, government grants have been handed out in the form of millions and billions of dollars to those who just somehow always end up supporting the same narrative. Any dissenters have their names smeared and their money evaporated.
Henry Payne of National Review writes:
“[Michael] Mann is the controversial director of Pennsylvania State’s Earth System Science Center. He was at the center of the 2009 Climategate scandal, in which e-mails were uncovered from climatologists discussing how to skew scientific evidence and blackball experts who don’t agree with them.
Mann is typical of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from government agencies. The federal government—which will gain unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed–has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989, according the Science and Public Policy Institute.”
Google Climategate, Google Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He resigned from the American Physical Society in 2010 after decades of membership because of the corruption in the industry, and the relentless promoting of the warming narrative. Read his resignation letter here. It’s a stunning indictment of the power of corruption in the environmental industry.
Here’s the point: Do not believe that the anthropogenic climate change narrative is pure. Don’t be like those who say of Obamacare (without anyresearch): “I think they’re just trying to do good.” Don’t be those people. It’s an intellectually bankrupt way of life, and leads to further allowances of corruption, and lies.
Follow the money. More importantly, follow the logic. That’s all it takes to see where corruption lies, and where intent is selfish—whether it’s about money, or power, or both.
Don’t be convinced of what you don’t know. Don’t believe the warming tautology.