Climate Change Funding Double Standards – Thank Heavens For Democracy

Posted on Tue 07/07/2009 by


The title might seem a little obscure, but it will become a lot sharper.

I’m sure you’ve all heard of cases when a Scientist, or even someone who is not, comes out and say that the Science behind Global Warming Climate Change is not settled, and there is still questions that need to be asked.

Immediately, that person is labelled as a ‘Skeptic’, or a ‘Denier’, and is ‘in the pay’ of ‘Big Oil’, or the Coal Industry or something like that. It has become almost a hackneyed phrase now, so that when it does happen that anyone says that we should be looking a little deeper, you can almost see the ‘alarmists’ crawling out of the woodwork to add a label, and find a reason why he is saying that, and those responses are the easiest to apply.

We’ve just passed another Independence Day, and that’s a time when we give thanks that we actually do have a Democracy. A lot of Countries around the World like to call themselves democratic, but the only reason they say that is they give (some of) the people the right to vote, and even those elections are more often than not a foregone conclusion. Once elected, you never hear much about what those political representatives do, because that is not part of the word ‘democracy’ that those Countries foster. Democracy in name only.

However, in some Countries, Democracy is actually real. Sittings are recorded, and anybody can freely see what those political representatives are doing in our name.

Here in Australia, we have that form of democracy that is completely open. All sittings are recorded, and some parts even televised. Those recordings of the sittings are published every day in hard copy, and are made freely available to whoever wants to take the time to view what was said.

Prior to each daily sitting session, we have a question time, where members can ask Ministers (in the U.S. you call them Secretary’s) in charge of Portfolios. The same also happens in the Senate.

So, how does this fit in with Climate Change Funding?

When those Scientists and others question Climate Change, they are labelled sneeringly as being paid off, actually paid to say what they do, and that is what is reported in bold type.

Recently, in the Australian Senate, a Senator asked a question of a Government Minister that seems to be a fairly innocuous question on the surface:

(a) For the past 5 years, what Australian Research Council research grants have gone to scientists and researchers associated with work related to climate change; and
(b) for each of these grants: (i) who was the recipient, (ii) what was the amount, and (iii) what was the short title of the research.

You can see that this question is detailed, but the thrust is this.

How many ‘bodies’ have asked for taxpayer funded grants from the sitting Government in order to investigate anything to do with Global Warming or Climate Change.

Because misleading the House is a serious political offence, the Minister has to answer the question in full, and answer truthfully, so even if the question is difficult, and may not be able to be easily answered on the spot, that Minister still has to provide an answer to the House, so he has to furnish the full answer as soon as possible, and then have that full answer placed on the record.

The answer arrived a day or so later, and provides eye popping and probably even jaw dropping clarity.

Because it is on record, here is that answer with all those details. This is a pdf document, so for all those who take the link, please be aware of that.

From perusal of this document, it would seem that if you put Climate Change or Global Warming somewhere in the proposal, then Government funding is almost a certainty.

There are around 470 such Grants, and that is only from the last 5 years. The total amount when they are all added up is just a tick over $200 Million. That might not really sound much, but here you need to realise that Australia is only a small Country in the scheme of things with a population only one fifteenth (6.6%) the size of the U.S. so $200 Million is a fairly large amount.

It’s around $40 million a year over those five years, but looking a little deeper, some of the details prove quite interesting.

The average amount works out at around $400,000 per grant, and averaging does not always show the truth of things. Some grants are only around $20,000 and the two big ones total $12.5 Million each.

What is also of interest is that the Current Labor Government (same as for your Democrat Party in the U.S.) came to office saying loudly that the previous Conservative Government were the equivalent of environmental vandals and did all they could to deny the existence of Global Warming or Climate Change, and did all they could to fight against any study into the debate.

The funding does not back that up, because they gave almost as much in grants as did the current Government. However, what is of note is that the current Government is giving it away at twice the rate. They have been in power only 18 months now, and have given funding in the amount of $95 Million, around $5 Million a month, while the previous Government gave away the remaining amounts over three and half years.

The point I’m making here is that there seems to be a little hypocrisy in the argument that those labelled as Skeptics and Deniers have attached to them the epithet of ‘being in the pay of’ whilst those on the side making those assertions are also receiving funding for the work they might also be doing.

Looking at some of the grants there, it is easy to see that some grants have been given more than once to bodies doing this work. The simple conclusion drawn from this is that those bodies know that grant money will not be forthcoming at a future time if any findings they make disagree with what they were hoping to find. To that end, it is in their best interests to keep that further funding if they only make findings that strongly agree with what they are asserting themselves, hence anything that might not be conducive to that end will not even be looked at, let alone mentioned in the end report.

So, when you see reports making findings that yes, Climate Change is a major thing, then be aware that those saying that are not as pure as the driven snow, while at the same time saying that those who disagree roll in the mud of dirty money to say what they do.

Those asking for taxpayer funding for their Government grant know full well that the current Government is willing to give them around $60 million a year, provided that is they word the request very carefully with those magic words ….. Climate Change ….. or Global Warming.