Thursday 9 October 2014

    To understand the climate change scare just follow the money

    After a radio interview with Naomi Klein, a texter to the radio station said that ‘climate change’ is poppycock. The well-known anti-capitalist author was promoting her recently published book called ‘This changes everything’ mostly about the climate change scare.

    The talk show host answered the texter’s comment by saying that the vast majority of scientists agreed it was a big problem. He questioned how such a big conspiracy could exist if it were not true.

    Having studied this topic for years I know that the belief in catastrophic anthropomorphic climate change is still strong, despite the relative lack of evidence, irrelevant evidence and much evidence to the contrary. So why is this?

    As with many things consider the money flows.
    1. It is not in the interest of climate researchers to downplay the issue. No problem – less research funding. It makes it financially difficult for academics to downplay the risk even if that is what they believe. It could affect their funding or their colleagues’ funding. The number of actual climate scientists is relatively small. It could conceivably cost less to ‘buy’ this issue than a world cup in Qatar.
    2. Insurance is easier to sell if people accept increased risk – Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurer, is hosting the 9th Extreme Weather Conference in Hamburg this week. No climate change sceptics were invited.
    3. Windmills and other alternative energy technology can only survive with subsidies. People selling these technologies are among the issue’s strongest supporters.
    4. Anti-capitalist protesters want to make doing business more expensive.
    5. Governments can raise additional funding with carbon taxes.
    Climate change scare campaigners often accuse fossil fuel energy companies of funding ‘deniers’. However, the amount spent is small compared to amount spent by well-heeled supporters of the belief - George Soros and Richard Branson come to mind.

    In any case, some fossil fuel companies can cynically benefit from the scare. They sometimes receive carbon credits. It may make it easier to charge customers more because restrictions imposed to counter climate change can reduce supplies of fossil fuels and increase prices. Restrictions on fracking in Europe and the delay of the Keystone pipeline in North America are two examples.

    Fossil fuel companies know that despite all the huffing and puffing people will still need fossil fuels for energy. Also gas producers can use the climate change issue to target coal producers because their product contains relatively less carbon than coal.

    Campaigners against the scare are outnumbered and outfunded independent researchers and consumers. The supposedly convincing nature of the overwhelming evidence is never properly explained. The argument that the evidence is unconvincing is usually refuted in the same manner as by the radio host - stating that 97% of scientists agree without looking in detail at what they agree.

    A quick look at history will show that the vast majority of scientists have been wrong about issues before – the position of Earth in the universe and others. Scientists are people like everyone else and the majority will put their own self-interest ahead of anything else.


    The truth will eventually become apparent and irrefutable. Even before that China, India and even Germany will burn more carbon because it is good for their economies. And in the meantime many people will become richer by exaggerating the problem – from research funding and by selling books, windmills and insurance.

    No comments:

    Post a Comment