|
Gargantuan Industry Of Climate Alarmism Exposed By ClimateGate
"Scientific Consensus", rather than
skepticism, is driven by profit and big business
|
|
|
The leaking of thousands of emails from the University of East
Anglia's Climate Research Unit has shined a light on an industry
of climate change alarmism, highlighting the hypocritical claims
of corporate cronyism on behalf of proponents of the anthropological
global warming theory (AGW).
A common accusation made by AGW theorists, or "the consensus"
as they like to be known, is that dissenting groups are only
interested in the financial kickbacks they can secure from big
oil companies.
For example, in 2008, ExxonMobil donated around $7 million,
less then 0.01% of it's annual profits, to a selection of think
tanks and institutes. Among these donations was a combined $125,000
to the National
Center for Policy Analysis and the Heritage
Institute, right of centre public policy groups
that have questioned the "consensus" on climate change.
The NCPA website states: "NCPA scholars believe that while
the causes and consequences of the earth's current warming trend
is still unknown, the cost of actions to substantially reduce
CO2 emissions would be quite high and result in economic decline,
accelerated environmental destruction, and do little or nothing
to prevent global warming regardless of its cause."
The
London Guardian and other left leaning mainstream
media outlets have pounced on Exxon's small donations to such
groups, reporting it as detestable corporate funding of "climate
change denial".
However, when it comes to the funding of AGW proponents, the
figures are infinitely greater, many of the sources take their
money directly from our pockets, and yet the Guardian and its
ilk, conveniently, remain completely silent.
The leaked emails from the Hadley centre reveal that (now former)
CRU chief Phil Jones has received 55 endowments since 1990 from
agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO,
worth a total of £13,718,547, or approximately $22.6 million.
$19 million alone came between the years 2000 and 2006.
Massaging the scientific data, hiding a decline in temperatures,
hijacking the peer-review system and blackballing dissenting
scientific opinion does not look good for Jones in the context
of such financial gain.
Another document leaked from the CRU, titled potential-funding.doc,
lists sources of potential funding and shows that the scientists
considered pressing "energy agencies" that specifically
deal in new technology to reduce carbon emissions.
Three agencies listed as potential sources of funding are UK
based Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative, and the
Energy Saving Trust. Renewables North West, an American company
promoting the expansion of solar, wind, and geothermal energy,
is listed as a fourth potential benefactor.
Of course, all these potential financial backers have a vested
interest in maintaining the conception that human-induced global
warming is a reality backed by science.
In an article entitled Climategate:
Follow the Money, columnist Bret Stephens
at the Wall Street Journal points out that the funding of climate
skeptics is a drop in the ocean compared to the huge industry
that human-driven climate change science has spawned.
"The European Commission's most recent appropriation for
climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not
counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S.,
the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts,
$400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National
Science Foundation. American states also have a piece of the
action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt
enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative.
In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate
Change at their funding disposal." Stephens writes.
"And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that
HSBC estimates has been spent globally this year on what it
calls 'green stimulus'—largely ethanol and other alternative
energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his
partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely."
Billions of dollars in grants for one research institute or
university does not go unnoticed by the rest, and there is a
valid point to be considered in the notion that this is where
the "scientific consensus" has it's roots.
"Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their
own." comments Stephens.
Al Gore, the first
carbon billionaire, has proven that he is only
interested in solutions to environmental problems that
line his pockets. The industry beneath him depends
on anthropological global warming like the dot com industry
depended on the internet he claims to have invented.
If you follow the money it becomes clear that it is the "consensus"
that is being driven by gargantuan financial backing, not the
skeptics, as climate change alarmists would have everyone believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex
Jones LIVE, A Fourth Hour Of Streaming TV Now Added To The Infowars
Radio Show
Click here to get your subscription today!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
