"Scientists are creating a scare to get grant money." &
"Funding pressures push environmentalists toward alarmism."
Common Arguments Made By Skeptics & Deniers
From Logical Science


I've seen more than a few people claim climate change is a fabricated scare used to get money.  This argument has been used against scientists before:

Movie: Thankyou for Smoking



While this argument is widespread, it has a number of flaws:

Flaw #1 - They don't want more climate research, they want the problem fixed.  Climate Scientists have nothing to gain from fixing the problem.
The problem with this argument is that climate scientists aren't asking you to give them more money.  They are asking you to fix the problem.  Climate scientists simply do not have the expertise and training to develop nuclear fusion, the next generation of solar panels, or other forms of alternative energy.  If we develop those technologies then money would go to people who have nothing to do with climate research.  Climatologists also aren't in the position to benefit from carbon taxes.  So this argument has some serious flaws.

'I do not lobby for more climate funding. If you ask anyone who has actually interviewed me, they will say that what I say is "We don't need more research money to deal with the issue as to what needs to be done. ".' -Andrew Weaver Ph.D. 1
Flaw #2 - It's not just scientists.
There some real heavyweights in industry that say the problem is obvious.  Shell, British Petroleum, Walmart, DuPont, Cinergy, Swiss Re, and many more agree climate change is happening..
Flaw #3 - There simply isn't a lot of money in science
Then there is the argument that scientist are doing this only because controversy or the IPCC pays well.  Again, these people need to look at how much professors and research scientists earn for a living.  Of all the professional fields, hard science requires the most education and has one of the lowest levels of pay.

"One of the many absurd arguments against global warming is that scientists are only in it for the money....  The idea that there are vast wealth and perks to be made from climate science is wrong, and would raise a laugh (albeit a rather bitter one) from anyone "inside""- William Connolley Ph.D.

"Money and perks! Hahahaha. How in the world did I miss out on those when I was a lead author for the Third Assessment report? Working on IPCC is a major drain on ones' time, and probably detracts from getting out papers that would help to get grants (not that we make money off of grants either, since those of us at national labs and universities are not paid salary out of grants for the most part.) We do it because it's work that has to be done. It's grueling and demanding, and not that much fun, and I can assure everybody that there is no remuneration involved..." -RayPierre Ph.D.

If this is a scam, then why are all of these people in on it?  The best scientists from 18 countries are saying the exact same thing.  Countless CEO's from Fortune 500 insurance companies to even oil companies such as BP are also saying man made global warming is real.  If this is a scam, it is the most prolific scam in history.
Flaw #4 - James Hansens & NASA's Earth Science sector is being mothballed
"When the administration announced its planned fiscal 2007 budget,NASA science was listed as having typical changes of 1 percent or so. However, Earth Science research actually had a staggering reduction of about 20 percent from the 2006 budget. How could that be accomplished? Simple enough: reduce the 2006 research budget retroactively by 20 percent! One-third of the way into fiscal year 2006, NASA Earth Science was told to go figure out how to live with a 20-percent loss of the current year’s funds.

The Earth Science budget is almost a going-out-of-business budget. From the taxpayers’ point of view it makes no sense.An 80-percent budget must be used mainly to support infrastructure (practically speaking, you cannot fire civil servants; buildings at large facilities such as Goddard Space Flight Center will not be bulldozed to the ground; and the grass at the centers must continue to be cut). But the budget cuts wipe off the books most planned new satellite missions (some may be kept on the books, but only with a date so far in the future that no money needs to be spent now), and support for contractors, young scientists, and students disappears, with dire implications for future capabilities" - Hansen, World Watch, v.19, #6
Flaw #5 - Despite calls of "Urgent Needs" from the NAS the satellite system is being shut down
"At a time when the Earth's climate is at the top of practically every nation's agenda, it might seem perplexing that there's a $100 million, fully completed climate-sensing satellite stored in a warehouse in Maryland. [snip] The Ukrainian government offered to lau­nch DSCOVR free of charge, France made a similar offer. But NASA's response so far has been "no thanks." [snip] Dr. Robert L. Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland, is even more blunt about the importance of DSCOVR's data: "Not knowing may kill us." -Seed Magazine

-----------------------------------------------------------

"WASHINGTON (AFP)—Scientists concerned that Earth is threatened by global warming have a further worry: the US satellites tracking climate change are threatened by poor funding. The orbiting satellites that track shrinkage of arctic glaciers are themselves victims of shrinking federal funds, they warned in a new report that calls for an infusion of 7.5 billion dollars. Earth observation satellites operated by NASA, the US space agency, most of which have have surpassed their life expectancies, will probably be reduced in number by 40 percent by 2010, according to a report released Monday by the National Academy of Sciences, which provides the US government guidance on science matters..." -Seed Magazine

-----------------------------------------------------------

"So what was the result of the evaluation concluded in early June?
The agencies decided to build four satellites instead of the originally planned six and drop five instruments from each satellite. They also chose to swap out an ambitious sensor called CMIS - which would measure ocean wind speeds, among other things - for a less complicated one that has yet to be developed. The scaled-back programme would cost $11.5 billion to develop and launch and would provide polar satellite coverage from 2013 to 2026.
And which sensors were dropped, oh, yes, the climate sensors" - Eli Rabett, While you were on vacation....

Flaw #6 - There are far better ways of getting grant money
If they wanted more money they would say "hey we aren't sure, we need to study this more because of potential dangers."  That is not what the National Academies of 11 countries that signed the G-8 joint statement are saying.   They are saying we know the dangers, it's time to take action.  They are not stalling for more funding.
Flaw #7 - Scientists are competitive.  It doesn't pay to be jump on bandwagons.
Each individual scientist must compete for funding.  The best way to advance your career within the scientific community is to prove everyone else wrong.  It is their job to poke holes in each others arguments.   The fact that nobody can come up with a legitimate theory that debunks the consensus on climate change speaks volumes about the strength of the evidence.  
Flaw #8 - Scientists aren't exactly organized
In order to perform a worldwide consipiracy you would have to organize every individual scientist in the planet.  This simply isn't possible given that most research scientists do their own fundraising and the sheer numbers of individual scientists.
Flaw #9 - History tells us it's the opposite
Some people claim that NOAA and NASA are claiming they are creating a scare to create more funding.  This implies that the organsations are encouraging people to exaggerate the claims.  However, the evidence is just the opposite.  Dr. James Hansen, arguably the best climate scientist on the planet, told CBS in an interview that his research was being suppressed by the Whitehouse.  Dr. Rick Piltz resigned (VIDEO) from the Whitehouse due to former and current oil lobbyists editing his work.  According to a petition by the Union of Concerned Scientists,  10,000 scientists say their climate change is happening and their evidence is being suppressed.  NOAA's politically appointed head Admiral Lautenbacher certainly isn't rushing to create a scare.  In fact he's violating the law (video) which requires him to produce reports on a multiyear cycle.   Salon ran a story which describes NOAA and the Whitehouse's suppression of their scientists in more detail.  Factcheck.org has even covered CEI's spinning of the research..  The list goes on.
Flaw #10 - Peer Review works.
Peer review works best when something is highly publicized.  The Hwang Woo-suk scandal is one such example of fraud being discovered by peer review.  If this was a fraud it would have been exposed by now.  Countries around the world are constantly reviewing each others work.  If the data was falsified the oil funded scientists would catch it in a heartbeat.
Flaw #11 - The evidence is growing
James Hansen has been  trying to educate others about global warming since 1978.  He made predictions in 1988 that have come true.  The arguments used by the skeptics have been steadily shrinking over time.  A few examples of these are the satellite data, the sunspots, the volcanoes, etc are all arguments that have been used by the skeptics.  They have all been debunked.
Update: BBC wants the skeptics to show some evidence of a funding conspiracy.

Please see the blog entry here.  If there is any evidence of biased funding, the BBC wants to know about it.  It is as the BBC says, time to put the "cards on the table".


Sources::




If you would like to contact us, suggest a topic to be covered, contribute a relevant commentary,
or be part of this effort on a more permanent basis, please email:




Unique IP visits:




Made with Nvu