5 ms·

> 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 th

by 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.
- crux_ 17y ago
  I took a broader view of "the other side" from the grandparent comment. If you're going to assert that within climate research itself there are very few dissenters; well, yes. That's what having a broad scientific consensus means, after all! On the advocacy/policy front, 'the other side' is more well-defined and it seems clear to me that claims for it being dwarfed are incorrect. (AEI vs Greenpeace was just an out-of-the-hat comparison of two organizations that advocate loudly on opposite sides of the issue; you can look at the lobbyists-by-industry chart for a less randomly-chosen view of the same thing.)
  - bokonist 17y ago
    The problem is that the grant funded climate scientists all get more funding if they raise more alarm about global warming. Even more concerning, the distribution of grants, the peer review process, and the IPCC process are controlled by people like Mann and Phil Jones who study the issue like lawyers prosecuting a case, not like scientists proving a case. As a result, new scientists who are skeptical have little chance of getting grants, getting published, or getting tenure. Climate science has the same selection of the process as a priesthood, and that kind of selection process will produce the same errors as a religion. But right now, there is no alternative source providing funding. So all we hear about is a "consensus" when that consensus is really just a self-replicating group of believers.

by crux_ 17y ago

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.

crux_ 17y ago
I took a broader view of "the other side" from the grandparent comment. If you're going to assert that within climate research itself there are very few dissenters; well, yes. That's what having a broad scientific consensus means, after all! On the advocacy/policy front, 'the other side' is more well-defined and it seems clear to me that claims for it being dwarfed are incorrect. (AEI vs Greenpeace was just an out-of-the-hat comparison of two organizations that advocate loudly on opposite sides of the issue; you can look at the lobbyists-by-industry chart for a less randomly-chosen view of the same thing.)
- bokonist 17y ago
  The problem is that the grant funded climate scientists all get more funding if they raise more alarm about global warming. Even more concerning, the distribution of grants, the peer review process, and the IPCC process are controlled by people like Mann and Phil Jones who study the issue like lawyers prosecuting a case, not like scientists proving a case. As a result, new scientists who are skeptical have little chance of getting grants, getting published, or getting tenure. Climate science has the same selection of the process as a priesthood, and that kind of selection process will produce the same errors as a religion. But right now, there is no alternative source providing funding. So all we hear about is a "consensus" when that consensus is really just a self-replicating group of believers.