As usual, follow the money.
The Science and Public Policy Institute says a government monopsony on climate study is distorting the issue, and has already cost taxpayers $79 billion in mostly unnecessary expenditures. This includes science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. [Money spent to create panic and get the desired outcome?]
Read the article here, or the full report by Joanna Nova here.
While our government affects the outcome of climate studies by choosing which to fund, audits of the science are left primarily to unpaid volunteers.
A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of “global warming” theory and to compete with a lavishly-funded, highly-organized climate monopsony. Major errors have been exposed again and again.
Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks, which profit most, are calling for more. Experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion in the near future. Hot air will soon be the largest single commodity traded on global exchanges. [snip]
By pouring so much money into pushing a single, scientifically-baseless agenda, the Government has created not an unbiased investigation but a self-fulfilling prophecy. TransWorldNews
In her report Nova says, “It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim ‘to save the planet’ are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money.”
And in England, Freedom of Information requests for data used in climate studies to check their scientific validity are greeted with responses such as the following:
Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. Dr. Phil Jones of the Met Office.
Now a new peer-reviewed climate study from Australia is presenting a head on challenge to man-made global warming claims. The study appears in the July 23, 2009 edition of Journal of Geophysical Research. Link to Abstract
July 23, 2009
Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity. (emphasis mine)
The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.
“The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely” says corresponding author de Freitas.
“We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis.”
“The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.”
“Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS (emission trading scheme) will exert no measurable effect on future climate.”
Congress has written into the Cap and Trade bill the ability for them to give away carbon offsets to their favored constituents. Do you believe these very lavish gifts won’t be rewarded with very lavish campaign contributions?
Remember this when you find yourself paying the estimated $1,800 to $3,500 additional per year per family for energy costs. And remember it when its economic impact begins to be felt.
And follow the money.