Outing the Federal Funding Conspiracy

authordefault
on

In the midst of a radio interview the other day, on Vancouverโ€™s CFAX, a thoughtful caller phoned in to suggest that I was being taken in by a conspiracy of scientists, all of whom are promoting the notion of climate change because itโ€™s aย fertile area of research. The caller suggested that the โ€œconsensusโ€ in climate science is limited toย researchers who take money fromย government; he saidย theyโ€™re all touting a climate crisis because thatโ€™s the best way toย keep theย research fundsย flowing.

This isย an idea made popular by the relatively libertarian think tanks like the George C. Marshall Institute โ€“ groups that believe anything to do with government is necessarilyย corrupt, inefficient or otherwise wrongheaded. Itโ€™s an effective message: everyone harbours some degree of hostility toward government, so tying climate researchers to that unpopular entity is useful inย undermining the credibility of the climate changeย warning.

On the radio, it left meย to argue that my conspiracy theoryย  (that highlyย consumptive industries are sowing doubt about climate change irresponsibly) is better than the callerโ€™s conspiracy theory (that scientists, addicted to government funding, will say anything to keep the money comingย in).

Let me back away from that argument, which I think is unhelpful. Instead, I think itโ€™s better to look closely at the credentials andย motivation.

First, compare the credentials of those who are making the case for climate change, as opposed to those who sayย that the outrageous recent weather events are a cosmic fluke that we can ignore at no cost. You will find, overwhelmingly, that the worldโ€™s foremost climate scientists are arrayed on one side, and a bunch of second tier โ€œscientistsโ€ (mostly industry-funded economists) are lining up on the other. I think economists are swell โ€“ terribly helpful in making economic policy. But going to an economist for climate advice would be like calling an electrician to fix yourย sink.

Second, on the question of motivation, when the most powerful administration in the world is determined to deny that climate change is an issue, donโ€™t you think that self-serving scientists would be better off coming up with research projects that support the administrationโ€™s position? There is, you have to admit, a possibility that the best scientists in the world agree on the risk of climate change because the risk is real โ€“ in fact, undeniable. There is also a possibility (you have to admit) that think tanks that depend for their survival on donations from big industry might twist their own findings to support their favourite industryโ€™sย position.

So, keep an open mind to all conspiracies, check everyoneโ€™s references โ€“ and follow the money.ย That, I think, will give you the best change of arriving at a reliableย conclusion.ย ย 

authordefault
Admin's short bio, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Voluptate maxime officiis sed aliquam! Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit.

Related Posts

on

The AER significantly underreports the number and scale of spills, says researcher Kevin Timoney.

The AER significantly underreports the number and scale of spills, says researcher Kevin Timoney.
Analysis
on

Poilievre has clearly not earned enough respect from the Trump administration to credibly defend Canadaโ€™s interests.

Poilievre has clearly not earned enough respect from the Trump administration to credibly defend Canadaโ€™s interests.
Analysis
on

New research reveals how Dentsu, Havas, Interpublic Group, Omnicom, Publicis Groupe, and WPP cast themselves as climate champions.

New research reveals how Dentsu, Havas, Interpublic Group, Omnicom, Publicis Groupe, and WPP cast themselves as climate champions.
on

The groups have filed an OECD complaint against the worldโ€™s largest advertising and PR firm, saying its work enables major polluters to continue harming environmental and human health.

The groups have filed an OECD complaint against the worldโ€™s largest advertising and PR firm, saying its work enables major polluters to continue harming environmental and human health.