Don't the AGW-proponent groups get most of their funding from Big Government? Does that make them biased?

Question

Everyone asks who stands to gain from "climate change denial" - who stands to gain from "climate change acceptance" - government. The percentage of pro-AGW research and publication that is funded by government is a lot higher than the percentage of skeptical research and publication that is funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Answer 1

Since the "AGW-proponent group" makes up the vast majority of the scientists around the world, they get their funding from every conceivable source.  Government, foundations, universities, private sector companies, etc.

  The IPCC scientists aren't paid by ANYTHING by the UN, they're paid by their universities, etc.  In most cases working on the IPCC isn't making them more money, it's making them less, by taking time away from their research.

Here's what scientists say about this absurd argument:

"One of the many absurd arguments against global warming is that scientists are only in it for the money....

The idea that there are vast wealth and perks to be made from climate science is wrong, and would raise a laugh (albeit a rather bitter one) from anyone "inside""-

William Connolley Ph.D.

"Money and perks! Hahahaha. How in the world did I miss out on those when I was a lead author for the Third Assessment report? Working on IPCC is a major drain on ones' time, and probably detracts from getting out papers that would help to get grants (not that we make money off of grants either, since those of us at national labs and universities are not paid salary out of grants for the most part.) We do it because it's work that has to be done. It's grueling and demanding, and not that much fun, and I can assure everybody that there is no remuneration involved..." -RayPierre Ph.D.

"The problem with this argument is that climate scientists aren't asking you to give them more money. They are asking you to fix the problem."

"There simply isn't a lot of money in science

Then there is the argument that scientist are doing this only because controversy or the IPCC pays well. Again, these people need to look at how much professors and research scientists earn for a living. Of all the professional fields, hard science requires the most education and has one of the lowest levels of pay."

"Scientists are competitive. It doesn't pay to be jump on bandwagons.  Each individual scientist must compete for funding. The best way to advance your career within the scientific community is to prove everyone else wrong. It is their job to poke holes in each others arguments. The fact that nobody can come up with a legitimate theory that debunks the consensus on climate change speaks volumes about the strength of the evidence."

Answer 2

lol. Big government isn't caused by scientific research.  It's caused by politicians trying to appease their funders (e.g. generally Big Business).

Edit:

The real birth/grown of climate science started in the post WW-2 era when the military (i.e. government) wanted to know more about weather and climate. From experience they learned how crucial weather was to any military endeavor.  So obviously the funding for climate science research started from the government.  Business is generally only interested in the scientific research necessary to bring a product to market.  Thus, of course governments fund the vast amount of climate research.  

If it weren't for such government funding of basic scientific research, we wouldn't be discussing this on the Internet right now.

Answer 3

Big government would really like AGW to go away and not have to deal with it.  Look at the current administration.  They said there was no such thing as AGW when going into the Whitehouse.  They ask for a comprehensive report about the science, but it did not support their position so they refused to release it until sued.  NASA political appointees, some of whom were not even qualfied to hold the position,  were trying to downplay the problem.  The biased is in favor of the skeptics.  The potential severity of the problem is why it is an issue, not because scientist are making "big money" to find a problem.  Life would be much easier for them is it didn't exist.  

Besides, the big money was spent more than a decade ago across many disciplines to determine potential impacts and mitigating factors.  Relatively little is spent now.  Homeland security is a hotter topic, but even that seems to have leveled off somewhat now.

Answer 4

Bob said:

"....' -RayPierre Ph.D."

If you are going to quote him, at least use his real name: Raymond Pierrehumbert. Or else you could quote Connolley as "WC" to stay consistent.

And Bob, on your last quote, who wrote that (or spoke it, or whatever)?

S/he says "It doesn't pay to be jump on bandwagons."

This is wrong and s/he knows it.

Answer 5

Absolutely!

If the theory of AGW goes away tomorrow, what happens to the IPCC (they exist only to try and push AGW)?