97% of Climate Scientists Need Money, So Do Politicans

Over the last few days I’ve seen a lot bandied about in the main-stream media regarding global warming. John Podesta, the Presidents go to guy, said that 97% of climate scientists agree that not only does global warming exist, but that it is human-caused.   In fact, I saw an article on weather.com claiming that when you search through peer-reviewed articles you could only find 1 paper, written between November 2012 and December 2012, rejecting the premise that global warming is human caused. This is presented as incontrovertible evidence that nearly all scientists believe in a human caused global warming crisis. Is that really the case? Not according to Forbes.


In an article entitled, “Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis” Forbes contributor, James Taylor, had this to say. “It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.” According to the story only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis. This poll is PEER REVIEWED and was published in Organization Studies. A majority of those polled believe that (get ready for this shocking conclusion) nature is the primary cause. Why, haven’t these scientists heard the evidence put forward by politicians, researchers, and college professors claiming that global climate change is human caused? What could a majority in the scientific community know that we don’t?   Let’s ask another question. What could possibly link politicians, researchers, and college professors together in such a way that might cause them to come to the same conclusion about the cause of climate change? Hmmmmm, let me think. No don’t tell me, I’ll get it on my own in a minute. Let me think……. Could it be money?


Money is the tie that binds. How is research financed? Research is financed by a grant system where the many, compete for scarce resources. The folks who decide the recipients of those resources are long time professors and scientists in the respective field of climate research. Sounds like a good thing right. Well, usually experience is a great teacher, but not for this field of study. I remember in the 3rd grade being given a newspaper like publication called “The Weekly Reader” to peruse during my free reading period. In this lovely newspaper made for kids I was told that acid rain was melting the Statue of Liberty, that Killer Bees were coming up from Texas to kill me at any moment, and that Global Cooling (followed by Global Warming) was going to do me in if the bees failed in their evil task. All through the 80’s, then the 90’s, then the 2000’s I was told this again and again like some type of Tibetan mantra. Curiously, somewhere around the end of the 90’s the temperatures flattened. No more rises. Since that time we have been told, “you just wait, any second now, bam, y’all are going to be swallowed up by the rising oceans.“ Then in 2013 we got a glimpse of the problem when over 600 global temperature stations were closed. Emails where uncovered showing that scientists hid the fact that they knew the temperature data was flawed and therefore their climate models were useless.


So why would it not be a good thing for long time climate scientists to be distributing grant money? Ask your self this, how much money do you think these guys are going to dole out to a researcher whose paper is aptly titled, “Why Climate Scientists Have Been Dead Wrong for 40 Years?” You guessed it, none. Which is probably how much money the one lone researcher in 2012 got. But why do politicians jump on the bandwagon? Georg Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel that’s why.


Hegel’s political philosophy of thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis looks something like this in real life. Politicians take to the stump trumpeting some new crisis. They then propose a solution, their solution. Thus creating a new paradigm of power for themselves. Let’s put some flesh on those bones.


Mr. Politician:             We have a global crisis, the earth is getting hotter, and it’s our fault. We need to do something.


John Q. Public:            Help, help, whatever shall we helpless rubes do?


Mr. Politician:            I have the answer. We’ll start a government agency and we’ll call it the Environmental Protection Agency


John Q. Public:            Awesome thanks for saving us Mr. Politician.


Mr. Politician:            Oh, I failed to mention that over time this agency will regulate every part of your life without congressional approval, as this agency is part of the Executive Branch of government. In fact, it may try and take 1 million acres of Wyoming.


John Q.Public:            Wait, what? This is terrible, what have we done. Let’s get rid of the EPA.


Mr. Lobbyist:            Hold on now, speak for your self John Q. Public, do you have any money?


John Q. Public:            No


Mr. Lobbyist:            Well sit down and shut up, because I represent large commercial interests. We have plenty of money, and can line the inside of Mr. Politician’s re-election war chest. See here now, the EPA makes us a lot, and I do mean a lot of money. Without it our industry wouldn’t even exist. So no way can we get rid of the EPA. The sky would fall in, the seas would rise, we’d all fry from hot temperatures, all the fish and animals would become extinct, in fact the WORLD WOULD END AS WE KNOW IT!


John Q. Public:            That’s a bunch of bologna.


Mr. Climate Research Scientist:            John Q. Public you are an ignorant global climate change denier! (I need money)


Mr. Politician:          John Q. Public you are an ignorant global climate change denier! (I also need money)


Mr. Lobbyist:            John Q. Public you are an ignorant global climate change denier! (I’ve got money universities and policians)


Ms. EPA:           John Q. Public you are an ignorant global climate change denier! (I need a job)


The paradigm shift is effectively complete. The EPA is entrenched and cannot be touched. All opposition science is effectively silenced. Anyone who scientifically disagrees loses their collegiate tenure or cannot get research grants. Most political opposition is silenced because big lobbying outfits fund their opponents in general elections. And let’s face it, who is going to oppose a cleaner environment anyway. It’s like being against kittens or puppies. It’s not like MSNBC is going to run a nuanced piece on the subject. John Q. Public loses while statist bureaucrats talk rudely about him at cocktail parties in Washington, smugly laughing at his large sloping forehead, his knuckle dragging, and his unrefined ignorance. What’s worse is they loot his labor every time he gets a paycheck to help pay for it all. Such is the state of American politics. We the people, that’s a myth, an old wives fable, a unicorn. What we have now is, we the giant corporate interests (lobbyists) merged with their friends in the giant political machinery (government). That is the definition of fascism. And human caused global warming is one of the essential doctrines in the fascist religion of State Worship.


The Evangelical Libertarian

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s