May 26 2007
Funding Bias in Global Warming Research?
Is academia biased towards proving man made global warming AND government ordained solutions? This is something worth considering. We’ve certainly heard a lot about the scientist that received some funding from Exxon as spouting lies for Exxon because they pay him to do so, but should grants being handed out — OR NOT — based on if the research sets out with the purpose of justifying one side or the other without clearly looking at counter-evidence be under similar scrutiny? Just because it comes through academia does not mean that it does not have a funding bias.
- Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
- Lobbying & Law - Cold Cash and Global-Warming Research
- Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
Now, while what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, we’re not fans of discrediting an argument simply based on funding sources along. Either the evidence holds up or it does not. However, we should be aware that one side or the other will clearly appear to be the correct side if 95% of funding goes to supporting the specific outcome — simply because the massive lopsided volume alone will give it an appearance of overwhelming academic support.
When we are told 95% of scientists think global warming is man made and the government needs to act now, perhaps we ought to weigh that 95% figure more carefully? Moreover, it should be noted that a counter poll suggested the numbers are closer to 1) 40% agree man’s the problem and the state is the solution, 40% 2) think man’s a contributor among a host of others, but not enough evidence suggests a prudent government forced solution given the lack of evidence, and 3) 20% who don’t buy it’s man’s fault.
In our lead off post about global warming, we presented our concerns about those who stand to gain financially and politically by hopping on the global warming bandwagon — especially anything that involves giving more power to government to regulate and doll out mandates and spending to “solve the problem.” The problem is that many with ulterior motives are a strong part of the lobby for “the government’s gotta do something to stop it before we all die” side. Big business interests with solutions to manufactured problems are nothing new, as are big business interests with theoretical solutions to problems that could be solved by the free market without government. Then there are the one-worlders and socialists who like every ounce of liberty, freedom and wealth to be dolled out by central planners who know better than us all. Many of both groups actually believe in the idea of the “noble lie” (ala Plato & Strauss) to justify their higher order objectives since they believe most commoners are too dumb to understand the world, hence it is up to the self-anointed types to tell us lies for our own good.
At any rate, with a multitude of special interests — the Exxon’s of the world included — don’t buy either side without knowing whose interests are what and getting a better understanding of the big picture.
NOTE: In the past we’ve been accused of presenting only one side of this debate — that we show only those who don’t buy global warming. This is true, but that’s because 99% of the rest of the media is showing the other side. See our opening on the subject for more behind why we’re continuing with this series. We don’t recommend taking one side or the other without personally looking into both sides. Accepting the pro or anti side at their word is dangerous.
