Green Watch

Your Tax Dollars Fund the ‘Global Warming’ Narrative


Crossposted from Climate Dollars — this article was published June 20, 2017

The groups which advance the dubious narrative of man-made global warming have a lucrative ally: the federal government.

The cycle looks something like this: government grants fund politically-useful studies, which muddy the waters of real science – prompting global warming proponents to demand greater sums to conduct unscientific research on climate change. And with tens of billions of taxpayer dollars up for grabs, many such groups have a strong financial incentive to invent new studies. As Robert Brulle wrote in the press release for his study, “Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square.” 1

An article in the Washington Free Beacon reveals one such transaction. The National Science Foundation, a federal agency, is funding a $12,000 doctoral dissertation on “climate change denial” through grants to the University of Kansas. The researchers will use the funds to “assess perceptions of environmental risk” among groups in Louisiana to produce a “more complete and nuanced understanding of climate change denial.”

Government-funded studies like this further a specific political agenda – global warming – by ostensibly using ‘objective scientific fact’ to bolster arguments against climate change skeptics. The giveaway is in the language: “climate change denial [emphasis mine],” not ‘skepticism.’

As Dr. Steven J. Allen reminds us in this video, skepticism is a healthy and integral element of the scientific method; it keeps scientists factual and honest, because research that can’t be reliably replicated should be questioned. By glossing over such reasonable objections, politically-motivated climatologists do harm to the very science they are purportedly experts in.

As the nearby “U.S. Government Funding of Climate Change” article explains, the narrative that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming has failed to yield actual scientific evidence – let alone an academic consensus. Nevertheless, proponents of this message have been largely successful in harnessing government grants to produce what amounts to faux-scientific propaganda; studies which set out to prove a politically-minded agenda, rather than the factual forces behind global climate change.

These grants often reveal their own biases and motivations:

Residents of southeast Louisiana regularly experience environmental harm yet remain bound economically to industries that exploit the local environment. While environmental awareness is common, climate change denial is persistent in the community.

The researchers’ implication is clear. These residents have the incorrect opinion, and that warrants a government-funded study to correct their “denial.”

And as taxpayers, we all have the privilege of paying for it.


1. http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/december/climate-change/#sthash.XUpcCmxp.dpuf”>http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/december/climate-change/#sthash.XUpcCmxp.dpuf

Hayden Ludwig

Hayden Ludwig is the Communications Assistant at Capital Research Center. He is a native of Orange County, California, and a graduate of Sonoma State University.
+ More by Hayden Ludwig
  • Mark Schaffer

    Wow! How did grants bias Svante Arrhenius in 1898? Or every single legitimate science organization on Earth?

  • Mark Schaffer

    Over 54000 reasons to rethink this opinion piece:
    http://www.jamespowell.org
    “Studies of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming that are based on literature surveys give higher and more consistent results than opinion polls. Using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five literature surveys (11-15) agree closely. They comprise 54,195 articles from 1991-2015 and reveal an average consensus of 99.94%. I estimate that at least 150,000 individual authors wrote those articles and that number does not include all those who wrote about AGW during the period, only those found using specific search terms. (See Powell 2016, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(3), 157-163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079. Download free HERE until June 30 .) “

  • stephan011

    Here’s a simple proof that we are heating the planet. No model or projections are necessary, just physics:

    1. CO2 levels are rising: This is data from the Scrippts Observatory on Hawaii which has been tracking CO2 levels since the 1950’s. Data before this, relies on air trapped in ice cores and then correlated with the modern record. CO2 air measurements can be repeated by anyone, anywhere:
    https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png

    The sharp spike on the right side started with the industrial revolution, when we started dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    2. CO2 traps heat. The more CO2, the more heat. This was discovered in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius who later went on to win the Nobel Prize, here is his original paper: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

    And here’s an actual demonstration of the CO2 greenhouse effect, it takes about 3 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

    This experiment can be repeated by anyone, anywhere.

    If CO2 levels are going up, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then we are heating the planet. Full stop.

    There really isn’t any way around these basic facts.

    Modeling where that heat goes, is a useful and important thing to do, but not central to the argument. Models will always be approximate, but no flaw in a model will undo the basic underlying reality that we are pumping a *lot* of energy into the planet.

  • stephan011

    Please consider: There isn’t a SINGLE scientific institution in the entire world, which hasn’t told you that global warming is real, and that humanity is causing it, please take the time to read a few of their statements:

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html

    Meanwhile FOSSIL FUEL INTERESTS are funding a covert disinformation campaign:

    “Secretive donors gave US climate denial groups $125m over three years”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years

    They are funding literarily, the *same* people who told us that cigarettes are safe, and don’t cause cancer. THESE are the people who are funding climate denialism sites.

    So which gigantic conspiracy do YOU think is more likely? That *thousands* of scientists, in *every* country, decided to lie about global warming? OR that the fossil fuel industry, seeking to protect their profits, did?

  • Mike Risk

    A very America-centric article…climate research is carried out by many organisations around the world-and they all have the same opinion. American taxpayers are not the only ones funding this work-but every American should give thanks, every day, for their hardworking, underpaid scientists. And should bear in mind that no scientist can take any income from grants-to put a stop to this “gravy-train” nonsense.

    • ben welgoed

      Add-on: Grants do pay for time spent working on such projects. So, yes to the letter the scientists employ themselves by writing grant proposals as long as they perform at par or better. Still, given the skillset of these folks, they could be making waaaaay more money bamboozling the general public by producing opinion pieces for the fossil fuel industry, and their hired politicians.

      • Abel Adamski

        Or working in finance and the investment industry

  • jfreed27

    Just so you know. Deniers (and delayers) are complicit in the climate change deaths of hundreds of thousands per year 88% of them children (WHO, UNICEF) Congress hides behind phony skepticism, but they are guilty.

  • Abel Adamski

    Revelations 11:18
    God WILL destroy those that destroy the earth.
    So yes the Bible does say that man can and will destroy the earth. However it is prophecy and as such we can change our ways and avoid or put off that terrible time

    In the End Times where we are now God has stated he will remove his protection and we will bear the consequences of our words ,deeds and actions

    • ben welgoed

      Don’t you hate capitalized meaningless three letter words?

  • taranui

    Your tax dollars have been and should be working hard towards preventing a continuation of this:

    http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/images/2017/06/charted-opener_ref-numbers_v2_141k.png?itok=OG7EerSL&fc=50,50

    And not towards killing the messenger. Unfortunately the brigade of liars that the Republican machine has become over the last decade is driving the USA towards “Ideocracy” if permitted to continue.

  • taranui

    As “Capital Research” you should be interested in looking into the next big innovation and growth area. And that is: Solar Energy

    http://bigthink.com/think-tank/ray-kurzweil-solar-will-power-the-world-in-16-years

  • Concerned

    “dubious narrative of man-made global warming”
    “your tax dollars”

    There is not a shred of doubt among credible scientists (those who are not fossil fuel shills) that anthropogenic global warming is real and a problem that needs to be tackled urgently. There is not a shred of doubt that humans are 100% responsible for current global warmin. Anthropogenic forcing add up to greater than 100% (all natural effects such as volcanoes and the sun have “negative forcing”). There is not a shred of doubt that conservative mouthpieces such as Hayden Ludwig and fossil fuel funded think tanks are helping to damage the planet.

    Your tax dollars need to fund this work. Your grandchildren are depend on it.