“A new study shows that there’s big business in global warming alarmism, while climate scientists on the other side of the issue must fund their own research”
Briggs names the names of those who receive funding for promoting the global warming agenda, aka Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), the unexamined premise that humans cause observed climate change, largely through CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning.
We’ve all read the lurid headlines insisting that oil and coal companies, just like tobacco companies before them, spend
mbillions of US$ spreading doubt about AGW, the dirty rats. We’ve seen the trembling fingers pointed at climate scientists accused of accepting funding from energy corporations and non-profits associated with the climate skeptic (aka denier) brand upon their cheek.
But who foots the bill for the PRO-AGW message? Who pays for the research touted by the IPCC as proof of human causes of climate change? Who benefits from funding of pro-climate change research?
William Briggs has a list:
- Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, The Climate Project and other non-governmental organizations.
- The Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, both Houses of Congress and many more government agencies.
- Every major and minor university.
- Private companies and corporations seeking to sell climate related technology and products.
Jo Nova has detailed over $79 billion dollars in climate related government expenditures supporting, not objective, unbiased science, but a single hypothesis: Anthropogenic Global Warming.
None of this is startling news. The take-home message is that The Broadcast, the media monopoly, focuses only on the “doubt-casters” and pays not the least bit of attention to the money that goes to fund the big players listed above.
It’s no wonder the debate is all about climate change with little mention of the environmental destruction that has been on-going for centuries. It’s almost as if someone wants to draw attention away from the physical detrimental effects of human growth and development, focusing instead on technocratic solutions that support the economic status quo.
The race is on to pile up the biggest mound of money and stuff before the whole thing collapses in a pile of its own impossibility. Who wins and who loses?