Governments fund climate research–but only climate research that feeds alarmism–because they are the main parties in interest in the climate debate. Governments stand to gain trillions of dollars in revenue and unprecedented power if voters in the U.S. and other Western countries can be stampeded into ceding more power to them, based on transparently bad science.
The New York Times and other left-wing news sources assume that government funding is no problem, but private funding is a scandal. I think the opposite is true. It is a scandal that our government spends billions of dollars, enriching many compliant climate scientists–Michael Mann is just one of many examples–to promote its own power. Thank goodness that there is a tiny amount of independent funding that supports objective research and contributes to a debate that is being won, hands down, by climate realists like Dr. [Wei-Hock (“Willie”)] Soon.
I should say, because we all tend to forget this, that if government funds something then we, the taxpayers, are funding it. In other words, we the people are funding an attack on our own freedom. We the people are funding bad science that the political class intends to use to deprive us of our liberty. That’s why they react so viciously when a few of us like Willie Soon stand up to them and show that the emperor has no clothes on.
The paper that Willie W.-H. Soon co-authored, along with Christopher Monckton, David R. Legates, and William M. Briggs, is Why Models Run Hot: Results From an Irreducibly Simple Climate Model, appeared in Science Bulletin and can be downloaded here.
I previously posted an hour-long video in which Dr. Christopher Essex demonstrated why computer climate models cannot predict future climate because they will invariably produce “garbage out” even when the input is not garbage.
The paper by Willie Soon and his co-authors expands on this theme by identifying flaws in the computer models that predict future global warming. They conclude that due to mathematical errors, the models overstate the impact of CO2 on the climate by a factor of three times. They focus on the methodology used by the IPCC and show that it has produced false positives. The alarmists, unable to refute the findings in the paper, do what Leftists do in such cases, they employ the ad hominem attack. Thus, the attempt to smear Dr. Soon for authoring a previous paper, not even the one here, with private funding on the theory that private funding is not legitimate. Private funding though, unlike government funding, involves people giving their consent to how their money is to be spent.