Follow the Money
by Tom Donelson on January 4, 2012 at 12:10 PM
Steven Hayward of AEI noted that climategate was the single event that changed the debate since the weakness of man-made climate change science was exposed and studies like CERN showed the significance of natural causes. Global warming skeptics will be referred to as those who support natural causing climate change due to recent development in climate science.
The Climate change debate is not about the science, for if it was, we would be promoting the abundance of oil, natural gas and coal that lies underneath our ground. The money aspect of the whole debate is often ignored. Climate change alarmists often decry that the opposition is funded by big Oil and other dirty polluters, but if you are a climatologist and or in particular, one who supports the Anthropogenic climate change theory, it could be rather profitable. James Hansen, the godfather of the "world is going to end" received a quarter of a million dollars in 2004 from the Heinz Foundation while he was endorsing and campaigning for Teresa Heinz’s husband, Senator John Kerry. Last year, he supplemented his income by millions of dollars.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Matt Patterson researched and showed that over the past five years, climatologists' income doubled over other university professors, demonstrating that there are plenty of government and private foundation grants to go around. Most of the funding goes to those who do research supporting man-made climate change as opposed to reviewing natural causes. (When you consider that climategate demonstrated that there was a conspiracy to ensure that research showing natural causes of climate change not get published, it stands to reason that research funds will be directed into a specific direction.)
Matt Patterson noted, “Global-warming alarmists often portray climate scientists as poorly paid academics whose judgment is impervious to the influence of money. This seems strange given the billions of taxpayer dollars that have been invested in climate science over the past few years. And as the public-choice school of economics has clearly shown, the opportunity for reward affects even supposedly disinterested professionals.”
I have no problems with professors making money, and I have no doubt that many do believe in their cause and their science. I will give James Hansen the benefit of the doubt that he can’t be bought for a quarter a million dollars, but then I don’t want to hear about how those scientists who disagree with Hansen and his ilk or that those organizations that produce studies that challenge manmade climate change are bought and sold properties of the Big Oil, especially as I am about to show that the biggest scandal is the crony capitalism being practiced in the name of saving the environment. Let's face it, if you believe that science shows that natural causes are the prime reason, you are less likely to receive funding for your research.
Solynda showed diversion of resources from the government to green technology companies. Millions of dollars are shuffled to various companies but one thing that is coming clear, many of these companies receiving funding just happened to be donors to the President. Many companies, including some of those big energy concerns that the left rails against, are waiting in lines for subsidies and a chance to make billions.
GE's Jeff Immelt promoted going green when GE owned NBC while congress was outlawing the incandescent light bulbs. GE lobbied in 2007 for a bill banning incandescent light, and one reason was that they were the leaders in the production of compact fluorescent bulbs. Those light bulbs cost three times as much the old bulbs, and least we forget, many of those jobs producing the new bulbs went to China while Immelt and GE made a ton of money. Going green can be very profitable. During the 2010 energy debates, GE help write legislation that would tilt the various proposal in their favor and the big Wall Street firms just as Goldman Sachs supported climate legislation since they would profit from brokering in any cap and trade. If cap and trade was passed, it would have a boom for Wall Street and many major corporations.
BP, before the famous oil spill, worked with Senator Kerry to obtain favorable terms on energy legislations, and John Kerry was all too eager to help. The point here to take away is that many big corporations stand to make big money supporting green technology and receive favorable treatment from government. It is called crony capitalism.
Then there is the case of Al Gore who has made millions as a “green venture capitalist.” Gore is promoting green technology and has testified promoting laws that will enhance both the very same green technology and his own pocketbook. Nothing against Al Gore making money but doesn’t someone see a little conflict of interest when a former Vice President is lobbying Congress for technology that he personally will profit from?
Al Gore is a true believer, but it doesn’t stop him from going to Congress with the idea of having them pass laws that will not ensure his green vision but also make it profitable. So follow the money. There is millions to be made in researching climate change coming from private foundations and government, most of it directed in the direction of man-made climate change. This creates financial interest to be on the right side of the issue to advance your career. There are billions to be made by major corporations working with government subsidies, provided you make the right donation to the right political Party, in this case the Democrats. Follow the money and you will see that to be green means more than just being a good steward of Darth, it means becoming rich often with the aid of the taxpayers. Being green can be a pathway to wealth.