THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XII, Issue # 81, May 23, 2010
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
GLOBAL WARMING: CAUSE FOR ALARM?
By Paul K. Driessen, Willie Soon, & David R. Legates
TROUBLING ASPECTS OF THE WHOLE GLOBAL WARMING EXERCISE: THE VAST SUMS OF TAXPAYER MONEY BEING
SPENT ON EVERY IMAGINABLE ISSUE OF SCIENTIFIC, SOCIOLOGICAL, & POLICY RESEARCH -- THE WAY THE MONEY IS SPENT
ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY TO ADVANCE THE LEFTWING RADICAL IDEOLOGY & POLICY AGENDA CALLING FOR GOVERNMENT
CONTROL & DIRECTION OF ENERGY USE, THE ECONOMY, & OUR LIVES -- THE QUEST FOR MONEY & FAME AS THE REASON
WHY SCIENTISTS & NEWS STORIES BLAME EVERYTHING BAD ON GLOBAL WARMING -- WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS ALWAYS
FRAMED AS BAD NEWS
FULL STORY:
We’re often asked: What really causes all these alarms about global warming disasters?
As scientists and policy analysts who’ve studied our ever-changing climate for a combined 65 years and attribute the
changes primarily to natural forces, we’ve wondered that ourselves. We've also asked: Why is warming always framed as
bad news? Why does so much “research” claim a warmer planet “may” lead to more diarrhea, acne and childhood
insomnia, more juvenile delinquency, war, violent crime and prostitution, death of the Loch Ness Monster – and even
more Mongolian cows dying from cold weather?
We’re not making this up. In fact, this is just the tip of the proverbial melting iceberg of climate scare stories chronicled at
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/ warmlist.htm. Clearly, too much money is being spent on one-sided global warming
advocacy cloaked as “research,” not enough on natural causes and adaptation. Despite the best of intentions, too much
money can corrupt, or at least skew the science.
As they say, follow the money. Remember Indiana Jones’ immortal words: “Fortune and glory.”
Too many people in government, wealthy foundations, and activist groups have decided they know what’s best for us,
what kind of energy and economic future we should have, and who should be in charge. They intend to implement those
policies – and global warming scare stories are the key to achieving that objective. They’re pouring tens of billions of
dollars into the effort.
A good example of how research money politicizes science is this May 4, 2010, headline: “Carbon dioxide effects on
plants increase global warming.” The story enthusiastically reported the results of a science journal paper by Long Cao
and Ken Caldeira from the Carnegie Institution. Carbon dioxide is not just making the atmosphere trap more heat, they
say. It also enables plants to absorb CO2 more efficiently, so they don’t have to open stomata (pores) in their leaves as
much, and they evaporate less water.
That should be good news, as it enables plants to survive better under dry conditions, even in desert areas where they
couldn’t before. Any botanist or visitor to CO2science.org knows this. Indeed, hundreds of experiments show
how growth, water efficiency, and drought resistance of crop and wild plants are enhanced by higher levels of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. So more CO2 and better plant growth should be celebrated – not serve as another “climate
crisis” to further the political goal of ending hydrocarbon use and controlling our factories, jobs, cars, lives, and living
standards.
But the Carnegie folks turned this good news into bad, ominously saying the reduced evapotranspiration means plants
don’t cool down as much, and that supposedly raises global temperatures slightly.
Equally interesting, the researchers based their findings not on actual experiments, but on yet another computer model
that allegedly predicts future temperatures. When they tweaked various assumptions about the physiological effects of
CO2, global air temperature over land increased 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit (0.4 deg Celsius) above what supposedly would
occur just from doubled CO2 levels directly increasing the greenhouse effect. But just six months earlier, the same
authors tweaked the same model differently – and got only 0.2Fahrenheit (0.1 deg Celsius) of additional warming. The
authors now say this earlier result is “unrealistic.”
However, what guarantee do we have that the new assumptions are “realistic”? Maybe they are but, face it, there’s far
less “fortune and glory,” far less headline grabbing, in a mere 0.2 degrees. It’s also far less “realistic” to expect another
research grant, if the first one could only come up with 0.2 degrees of crisis. That’s not even 9:00 versus 9:30 on an
average Summer morning.
Besides fortune and glory, and more research grants and publications in prestigious journals, there’s also the matter of
reputation. Dr. Caldeira, besides being a reputable scientist, is also an advisor to billionaire Bill Gates on renewable
energy, and in charge of the $4.5 million in geo-engineering research funding that the Gates Foundation has provided
over the past 3 years.
How many climate scientists can rub elbows with Bill Gates? Glory indeed. So 0.7 degrees it is.
Of course, this does not mean more robust plant growth can never be harmful. But does it really take five researchers
and six funding sources (including the National Environmental Trust, NSF, NASA and NOAA) to model ragweed under
doubled CO2 computer scenarios and conclude, “there may be increases in exposure to allergenic pollen under the
present scenarios of global warming”?
All this makes us wonder: Why is it a bad thing that more CO2 helps plants tolerate droughts better and revegetate
deserts? Should we cut down more forests, to generate even more cooling than the planet has experienced since 2005?
Why do “error corrections” always seem to result in more warming than originally predicted, instead of less? And why
do taxpayers have to shell out Big Bucks on this stuff?
The United States alone has been spending some $7 billion a year on “climate change research.” That’s a lot of money.
But a majority of Americans now say climate change is due to natural forces, not to human CO2 emissions. To alarmists
that means more “research” and “education” on the “climate crisis” is clearly needed – but not more on better oversight
of questionable research or studying natural causes.
During a March, 2009, closed-door meeting, U.S. Department of Energy Senior Advisor Matthew Rogers outlined his
“dilemma” over how to comply with his new mandate to quickly spend $36.7 billion in grants and loan guarantees from
the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka, the Stimulus Act) on renewable energy and climate change.
Today, with only $300 million of our taxpayer money and children’s inheritance left to spend, poor Matt says his
“popularity continues to decline.”
Nearly $2.4 million dollars of that Stimulus loot may be funding the latest research by Penn State University Professor
Michael Mann, father of Mann-made global warming, the debunked hockey stick temperature graph, and many infamous
Climategate e-mails. In one new project where Mike is the principal instigator, over a half-million dollars in grant money
generated only “0.53” jobs in Pennsylvania. We must have missed the headline “Stimulus Creates Millionaire.”
We’re not suggesting fraud or corruption by Caldeira or anyone else. But we do find it curious that the vast bulk of the
money goes to research that consistently discovers more “global warming crises.” We find several other phenomena
equally curious.
In an era when ExxonMobil posts all its grants on its website,
and we have the “most transparent government in history,”
government agencies, Liberal foundations, and activist
groups jealously guard information on who’s getting how
much money from whom, to finance all this crisis-oriented
research.
Universities are fighting attorney-general investigations,
and insisting that any investigations into alleged
misconduct must be conducted in-house and behind closed
doors. Yet, they are happy to give Greenpeace
fishing-expedition access to emails and work products by
climate crisis skeptics.
Despite insisting that their research and findings are
completely honest and above-board, climate alarmists still
refuse to share their data, computer codes and
methodologies, or discuss and debate their tax-funded
work with scientists who might “try and find something
wrong with it.”
If we didn’t know better, we’d think the operative rules were: Never seek logical or alternative answers, if you can blame
a phenomenon or problem (like decreasing frog populations) on global warming. Do whatever it takes and fund whatever
research is needed to advance the goals of ending hydrocarbon use, increasing government control, and “transforming”
society. And always include the terms “global warming” or “climate change” in any grant application.
It may not be corruption. But it sure skews the research, conclusions, and policy recommendations.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Political Environmentalism Versus Human Progress & Prosperity:
Policy Issues Relating to Energy, Environment,
& Natural Resources
Political Economy -- Philosophies, Systems, & Public Policies:
Government, the Economy, & Economic Prosperity
Paul Driessen is Senior Policy Advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org). Willie Soon
is an independent scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. David Legates is a climatologist at the
University of Delaware.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XII, 2010
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity