|Another delivery of BIGOIL cash to sceptics?|
Big oil funding climate sceptics?
Today, Marc Morano reports on a great deception by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
An orchestrated campaign is being waged against climate change science to undermine public acceptance of man-made global warming, environment experts claimed last night.
Do scientists report the facts or distort the facts?
Read more HERE, but the article finishes with ~
An environmentalist lobbying group claims corporations pay vast sums to misrepresent climate science. (reason.com)So what vast sums of money did the duplicitous executives at General Electric lavish on the Reason Foundation in 2008 and 2009 to support an implied campaign to traduce climate science? Exactly $325. How much did GE spend on matching and direct grants on the six think tanks identified by the UCS as being pro-climate consensus? That would be $497,744. At least with regard to General Electric’s contributions, it appears that the Union of Concerned Scientists has salted a follow-the-money trail with pieces of fool’s gold, which certain unwary news outlets obligingly picked up and reported as real bullion.Let’s take a deeper look at just how much “support” General Electric has funneled into the Reason Foundation’s coffers. The UCS report notes it identified this “support” by mining General Electric’s two most recent IRS 990 forms, which report charitable giving by the GE Foundation. I asked Reason's development people how much GE has contributed to the Reason Foundation during those two years. The grand total in our files and confirmed by the 990 forms investigated by the UCS researchers: $100 in 2009, and $225 in 2008.
The upshot is that a close analysis of this aspect of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ A Climate of Corporate Control report reveals severe shortcomings that do not inspire much confidence in the overall accuracy of the lobbying group's claims. "Follow the money" may be one of the hoariest maxims in journalism, but it's only good advice when the money you're following actually amounts to something.I repeat, do scientists report, or distort, the facts?
Read also Jo Nova's CLIMATE MONEY (pdf)
(extract) 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 paper is that 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?
Carbon trading will be bigger than oil, and even the promise of a market that massive and lucrative represents a major vested interest.The point of this paper is that the process of science can be distorted (like any human endeavor) by a massive one-sided input of money.
The danger of the distortion in the scientific process means that we need to focus closely on the question of evidence. This paper calls for more attention to be paid to empirical evidence, as well as ways to use incentives in science that help us discover how the natural world works in the most timely and efficient manner possible.Read also Sceptics Lavish funding by Big Oil Exposed as lie.