5 ms·

>"This "climatologists may be incentivised to spread FUD b/c it brings fame and more grant money" bit doesn't pass the smell test for me. If this is the true mo

>"This "climatologists may be incentivised to spread FUD b/c it brings fame and more grant money" bit doesn't pass the smell test for me. If this is the true motivation of climatologists, then why aren't more of them going for the fame and think-tank money available to them by expressing dissent?" Many people go into environmental science because they are environmentalists. You get the same results as when you send a group of Catholic priests to investigate the virgin birth. Or, picking on my own biases, it is like sending a bunch of libertarian economists to estimate the utility of a government program. Also, the billions that governments are spending on climate change policy and research easily dwarfs money on the other side. That's a bit of FUD spread by the alarmists that doesn't pass the smell test. Trust, but verify.

crux_ 17y ago
> Also, the billions that governments are spending on climate change policy and research easily dwarfs money on the other side. That's a bit of FUD spread by the alarmists that doesn't pass the smell test. Well, this looks to resemble a checkable fact, rather than the supposition and ad homeneim the rest of your post was filled with. Data point: In 2006, Exxon alone spent 733 million in R&D (from their annual report). That's about 5x (edit: I had written 6x) the federal National Center for Atmospheric Research's budget. (153 million) (source: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/content.cfm?pub_id=3924&id=2 http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/content.cfm?pub_id=39...) Data point: The American Enterprise Institute's 2006 income: 28.4 million. (From sourcewatch.org) Greenpeace USA? 11 million. (from the 2006-7 annual report) Data point: Environmental & health lobby spending is dwarfed by that from energy groups: http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change/assets/img/climate-change-chart.gif http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change... Data point: Anti-climate research for cash: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagen... I think that's enough for now. To claim that the "other side" is dwarfed is laughable, at least as long as you are speaking dollars and not facts or mindshare. At the _very_ least, it's an even fight (looking at research dollars); more likely the resources on the anti-climate-change side far outweigh those of scientists and climate change activists (including policy & advocacy dollars). Edit: tsk, tsk. Reply, don't downmod!
- smanek 17y ago
  Exxon's R&D budget isn't going into global warming research - it mostly goes into research into how to find and tap oil (geology, physics, mathematical modeling, etc). A substantial portion (20-30% - from what I can gather) goes into green research (biofuel, solar, fuel cells, carbon capture, etc). You can't compare the 'income' of two arbitrary non-profits (greenpeace and AEI) and draw any conclusion from it either. Seriously, it's idiotic and misleading to try to do so.
  - crux_ 17y ago
    And NCAR doesn't just do global warming research, either. There really is no such thing that I can see as "anti-climate-change" research so it would be rather difficult to find a direct comparison. > You can't compare the 'income' of two arbitrary non-profits (greenpeace and AEI) and draw any conclusion from it either. Why not? My purpose here is only to give a counterexample to the 'policy' portion of the claim that the "anti-climate-change" side is "dwarfed" by the pro- side. It's fair to say that both Greenpeace and AEI do are quite active on the issue (I picked the first two that came to mind); equally it's fair to say that Greenpeace certainly does not 'dwarf' AEI; and further it seems reasonable that Greenpeace isn't massively outspending AEI even on the single issue of climate change. It seems to me almost certain that the opposite is true.
- bokonist 17y ago
  Exxon spends a ton on R&D, but very, very little of it is for climate science research. As far as I can tell, they're total amount of spending on climate science research the past few years was about $75,000 ( http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonsecrets/2009/05/26/exxon_admits_2008_funding_of_global_warm http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonsecrets/2009/05/26/e... ). The American Enterprise is not a climate research institute, it's a general purpose, conservative policy shop. It does not fund original climate research, it just funds policy experts who write issue papers. It's comparable institute on the left is the Brookings Institute ( which incidentally has a budget almost three times the size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution ). As far I can tell sum of the amount of money on the skeptic side, for actual climate researchers, consists of Steve McIntyre's retirement fund and a the salaries of a few tenured professors. On the other side, there are about 2,500 scientists who get their money through grant funding, and the people in charge of dispensing those grants are either governments or other non-skeptical, climate scientists. The overwhelming amount of the money goes to organizations and scientists who believe in AGW.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

crux_ 17y ago

> Also, the billions that governments are spending on climate change policy and research easily dwarfs money on the other side. That's a bit of FUD spread by the alarmists that doesn't pass the smell test. Well, this looks to resemble a checkable fact, rather than the supposition and ad homeneim the rest of your post was filled with. Data point: In 2006, Exxon alone spent 733 million in R&D (from their annual report). That's about 5x (edit: I had written 6x) the federal National Center for Atmospheric Research's budget. (153 million) (source: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/content.cfm?pub_id=3924&id=2 http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/content.cfm?pub_id=39...) Data point: The American Enterprise Institute's 2006 income: 28.4 million. (From sourcewatch.org) Greenpeace USA? 11 million. (from the 2006-7 annual report) Data point: Environmental & health lobby spending is dwarfed by that from energy groups: http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change/assets/img/climate-change-chart.gif http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change... Data point: Anti-climate research for cash: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagen... I think that's enough for now. To claim that the "other side" is dwarfed is laughable, at least as long as you are speaking dollars and not facts or mindshare. At the _very_ least, it's an even fight (looking at research dollars); more likely the resources on the anti-climate-change side far outweigh those of scientists and climate change activists (including policy & advocacy dollars). Edit: tsk, tsk. Reply, don't downmod!

smanek 17y ago
Exxon's R&D budget isn't going into global warming research - it mostly goes into research into how to find and tap oil (geology, physics, mathematical modeling, etc). A substantial portion (20-30% - from what I can gather) goes into green research (biofuel, solar, fuel cells, carbon capture, etc). You can't compare the 'income' of two arbitrary non-profits (greenpeace and AEI) and draw any conclusion from it either. Seriously, it's idiotic and misleading to try to do so.
- crux_ 17y ago
  And NCAR doesn't just do global warming research, either. There really is no such thing that I can see as "anti-climate-change" research so it would be rather difficult to find a direct comparison. > You can't compare the 'income' of two arbitrary non-profits (greenpeace and AEI) and draw any conclusion from it either. Why not? My purpose here is only to give a counterexample to the 'policy' portion of the claim that the "anti-climate-change" side is "dwarfed" by the pro- side. It's fair to say that both Greenpeace and AEI do are quite active on the issue (I picked the first two that came to mind); equally it's fair to say that Greenpeace certainly does not 'dwarf' AEI; and further it seems reasonable that Greenpeace isn't massively outspending AEI even on the single issue of climate change. It seems to me almost certain that the opposite is true.
bokonist 17y ago
Exxon spends a ton on R&D, but very, very little of it is for climate science research. As far as I can tell, they're total amount of spending on climate science research the past few years was about $75,000 ( http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonsecrets/2009/05/26/exxon_admits_2008_funding_of_global_warm http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonsecrets/2009/05/26/e... ). The American Enterprise is not a climate research institute, it's a general purpose, conservative policy shop. It does not fund original climate research, it just funds policy experts who write issue papers. It's comparable institute on the left is the Brookings Institute ( which incidentally has a budget almost three times the size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution ). As far I can tell sum of the amount of money on the skeptic side, for actual climate researchers, consists of Steve McIntyre's retirement fund and a the salaries of a few tenured professors. On the other side, there are about 2,500 scientists who get their money through grant funding, and the people in charge of dispensing those grants are either governments or other non-skeptical, climate scientists. The overwhelming amount of the money goes to organizations and scientists who believe in AGW.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]