I’ve had a change of heart. I’ve been sent some new data, after seeing it, I’ve decided that The Heartland Institute is actually a terrible threat to science in the USA. As “Deep Throat” famously said (in the movie), “follow the money”. Well here it is, all laid out. I hope the public relations experts at DeSmog run this.
Oh, wait.
And actually, if you look at Heartland’s Gleick-grabbed budget plan, the actual numbers spent on climate programs are a fraction of that 6.5 million total budget.
No wonder our friends are so scared of Heartland, they are effective for next to nothing by comparison to US government climate programs. Thanks to Josh at cartoonsbyjosh.com for the artwork.
ROM said March 1, 2012 at 2:52 pm:
>The astonishing thing about this truly immense expenditure of public monies
> and resources in an effort to mitigate and prevent global warming and
>climate change is that “nobody” as in “nobody” seems to have been able to
> detect that it has made the slightest of differences to the global climate or
> changed the so called climate change trends in an even slightly detectable
> fashion.
Something I see: Largely stalling the slightly significant contribution to AGW
via GHGs other than CO2.
And, largely-successful, and done to mitigate a problem other than CO2.
Furthermore, much of that done in a way that I think is excessively
burdensome – at least 99% of the good achieved so far was doable with about
80% of the burden. For example, I see *essentially zero* need for medical
“inhalers” to be required to avoid halogenated inhalers, and colored glass
usage in making colored light bulbs to avoid using cadmium.
Just for the record, I have never ever believed in Man Made Globull Warming. So the above mentioned sums go a long way to explain why so many do.But how is it spent. On fundamental research such as Argo, PR, Marketing, Politics, Advocacy, with the balance gifted to solar/wind frauds or carbon trading scams.
Yet, despite these vast sums nobody can really define Eco Friendly or Sustainable or Balance. For example what really is the difference between a Rock and a Plastic bag in a landfill? Everything man has ever used is still here. It has not disappeared. There is maybe even more forest now than there was in 1900. The real problem is we need to do things better, produce less toxins and repair the damages that we do and that is easy enough.
Is it really so difficult to turn the basic thinking around from “Dont do that”, ” Ban this”, Prohibit that” to lets just fix it, do this, build that. Looking at all that Money, none of it is available for solutions, fixes, improvements. None.
Just a tiny fraction of those vast sums mentioned above would launch Thorium reactors, be a game changer. O.K. thats really cutting edge but really is it any more far out than Argo/
The group I work with have secured a Government contract, to employ three proven organic technologies that will reduce “carbon” emissions, stop water table pollution, repair damaged land, increase yields and improve animal health all with “instant” cost benefits. The absolute results will be demonstrated in four to six weeks. However, instead of full speed ahead, lets do this. its painfully slow, step by step as nobody can provide funding and by funding i talk of dollars and cents. Loads of grants available but not for “doing” things only for research. I went to one of the big guys, mentioned here. They just gave 100 million to climate works, looked at their criteria. Doing things not mentioned or even encouraged
This is the problem, its a mind set, a lock step. The billions spent and wasted on non existent problems. Look at the passion, sentient people pushed, “they made me do it”, to fraud, deception, self immolation. Why? For what?
Look at Heartland, compare it, just the chart above, David and Goliath is really understating it. Its a tidal wave, a Tsunami and one that needs to be stopped in its tracks. Now.
Please, stop, think and get to see the wood for the trees. The truth certainly helps but is it enough. What more, ethically and Honestly can be done. I really am speechless but not bowed.
The efforts of sites like this are a great step forward but the successes it achieves are very small compared with the clearly vast scale of the problem that it seeks to address. More thinking outside the box i needed, more positive ideas, more affirmative action of the caring human kind is required.
Recently i keep coming back to the farewell speech of one of America’s most respected President’s, Ike Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech and it’s now famous and much quoted Military / Industrial Complex quote.
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together”.
But there was another quote that is very relevant to today in that speech, a quote that is usually overlooked by most but carries a warning of equally grave consequences for our democracy and society.;
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”
Eisenhower was far more prescient than even he ever imagined
I don’t want my tax money to be spent this way.
No rational person wants their tax money spent that way. But is doing the mirror image thing the correct way to counter it.?
John from CA says: March 1, 2012 at 9:57 am
The simple answer is NO.
As a longtime government employee having worked in various areas of research and development, I have seen almost exactly the same projects proposed and funded over and over. All you need to understand this situation is to look at the number of pilot projects that are installing PV systems. There are literally thousands. (Hundreds were in the last stimulus bill alone.)
Now, how many times do you really need to install photo-voltaic panels to determine if they are a cost effective solution with a reasonable ROI time? How many wind turbines/farms need to be built in order to understand that they can only produce < 20% of their nameplate rated power over time? How many experimental bio-fuel plants need to be built in order to understand that algae, corn, wood, saw grass, or (insert your favorite plant) do not create economically usable fuels?
The energy densities of these renewable energy sources are pathetically small when compared to coal, oil, gas, nuclear or hydroelectric. Until the energy density problem is addressed and resolved, there is no hope that these technologies can ever be economically viable. However, this is the large problem that no one is working to resolve.
But governments want to be seen as working to solve the problem, so they fund lots of pilot projects that would never be funded by private industry/investors because there will never be an ROI (at least not without substantial government subsidies).
Great chart anthony. These are very useful to the average Joe to get an immediate understanding of the numbers involved.
I support the comments upthread that suggest adding in all the green propaganda organizations as well.
You should make this an ongoing effort, updating the chart as more info becomes available. Periodic posting, perhaps monthly or bi-annually will keep it on the radar screen.
“Richard M says:
March 1, 2012 at 7:51 am
And, if you look at the global values it gets much worse. Anyone have EU numbers?”
Sadly not, not even the EU has EU numbers that any accountant will believe.
I’m guessing funding is so important to the Peter Gleicks of this world, as they seem to believe that ‘science’ (not sure whether we should see this as knowledge or the specific methodological expression) is justified and made possible by funding – their offices, computers and jobs are funded, and this gives them their identity and authority (and the time to produce research).
They do not seem to realise that research and science can be done from home or the public library, and therefore assume that any research or science (or ‘anti-science’) that is conducted must be funded. As Heartland is one of the few clear sources of such funding, they therefore assume it is important.
The focus on funding is the same as the focus on the fact that only ‘scientists’ opinions count – a falsely-constructed elitism which fails to comprehend there is no difference between science wherever it is constructed. A self-defining elite are basically not only trying to close off avenues for their intellectual opponents to access funding, but are actually convincing themselves that there must be funding for those same opponents from elsewhere.
In this respect, it is probably worth considering how many of the blogs that push the man-made climate change narrative are actually unfunded. Even the bloggers generally seem to require funding and support networks for their work – and as this is how the clique of climate scientists and their hangers-on who push this narrative will view bloggers (as these are the ones they meet, a perfectly normal point of view), then they will assume all blogs are managed this way. Which explains their strange refusal to accept Steve McIntyre is effectively a one-man band with the option of a few moderators for comments, but must be funded by fossil fuels. It is a disconnect from reality which does not realise that blogging or science can be cheap and easy – and since it believes everything is expensive, has to explain it all by funding.
Just a guess, but worth considering – the fact that the clique are so well funded blinds them to what can be done without funding…
I would love to see a chart showing government spending on climate science over the last few decades. Would it look like a hockey stick by any chance?
Chris
Good point Wermet, a way to save hundreds of millions, have a simple grant data base. Also what happens to all the pilot plant results???? They seem to disappear.
Ian Plimers recent book lists just some of the cash used to spin the green lies in aus.
from a fast add up of what he listed its a hell of a lot of the DEBT the useless LIAR and her gang have run Aus( that did have a postitive balance till labor) into to the tune of billions and millions new debt per day!
book is: how to get Expelled from school…and its a ripper.
AJB says:
March 1, 2012 at 9:55 am
> It’s official: Greenpeace Serves No Public Purpose.
> http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/canada-leaves-greenpeace-red-faced
Interesting, but note the article is from 1999.
In order to explain away their failure to convince everyone that we are doomed they blame HI which has almost no money, which makes their failure look even worse. What a clever argument! But it reveals a shocking lack of self-insight and a huge capacity for self-delusion if they truly believe this meme that sceptics are a huge oil-funded conspiracy.
Really you should exlude research (for actual climate, not effects of climate)
Interesting article suggesting Green groups get 700 million dollars a year just from US foundations. You can buy a lot of influence with that kind of money.
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/5009-the-american-eco-oligarchy.html
Wow! Just WOW!
These sums of money are really huge, beyond comprehension and yet they are spent on what exactly. Hundreds of PV studies per year. PR, Politics whilst people freeze to death and starve.
They talk about “Green” projects, well where are they. Do they mean Solyndra and various similar scams. Or is it spent on crooked carbon trades or paying Aborigines to do what they have always done, burn bush or to compensate those burned out because they cannot burn brush (Victoria deadly fires)
Cut the root