Where does climate change funding come from?

Question

I have given two sources below which I believe are representative of some of the climate change funding sources. I'm not sure how accurate the Greenpeace report is since they are certainly biased. Further, the US government report may only represent a fraction of actual US climate science funding and is certainly only a fraction when compared to global government funding.

So my two sided question is this: Is this fairly representative of the balance of climate science/change/skepticism funding and is it fair to say that government funding dwarfs skepticism funding?

Greenpeace report on skeptic funding: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2010/3/koch-industries-secretly-fund.pdf

US Government climate change research funding: http://www.climatescience.gov/infosheets/ccsp-8/

Answer 1

It seems to me you're confusing funding of science with funding of propaganda.

Answer 2

Hi, Ottawa Mike. Just saw your comment in a previous answer a few minutes ago, so figure I should answer to get my lumps. :) I'm afraid that my answer won't prove very satisfactory to you.



You are comparing apples and oranges with the intended thrust of this question. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are comparing denier money to the money for science, not affirmation. That will work well for people who believe as you do, but for me, I see science itself as skeptical. Thermometers aren't theologians, probes aren't political. The proper comparison is in the amount of money spent to deny or affirm AGW. And the deniers win that contest hands down - as is obvious from an understanding of why this particular subsection of Y!A exists, or just how the Tea Party came to have a platform plank that says AGW does not exist. Dig into just why these 2 things happened, Why did the Y!A global warming section and the Tea Party's "AGW does not exist" plank occur? [And while you're there, take a quick look at their positions on creation and second-hand smoke!] Unravel just those 2 threads and you will have a good appreciation of the levels of denier deception.



Since you seem to be using the budgets of scientific investigations to add to the total $$$ on the realist side, should you not then use the entire budgets of Koch and Exxon and everyone else in the fossil fuel industry to add up the money for the denier side? No? Why not? What are you adding in on the realist side?



Science is neutral. The costs of science should then be considered - for this argument - as a wash - as neutral. Now look at the deniers and affirmers delivery systems. The deniers have people like Darryl Issa and James Inhofe in congress. The Tea Party is rabid against environmental regulations. Rush pontificates about AGW every once in a while. The affirmers have government websites, some blogs, and a bunch of scientists who really don't argue very well. The scientific organizations that attempt to combat global warming illiteracy, sometimes as part of the general scientific illiteracy, don't have a fraction of the resources available to them to get out the facts.



And much is facts, not arguable, except in Denier [aka: Fox} World. We know the earth is warming up, we know CO2 is the main cause, and we know humans are primarily responsible for the "excess" CO2. This has been demonstrated by the same science that has given us the internet on which we are currently arguing. That deniers do not like facts does not mean the facts are in dispute. I do concede your side has an amazing apparatus to deny the facts.



So amazing is this apparatus for denying AGW that you might suspect it has been around for a while. After all, it is a large, well-organized, well-funded [40% conservatives in the US means a lot of money for "conservative causes" you haven't counted in anti-AGW propaganda], well-distributed and rather smooth-running operation. The rough edges seem to have been worn down. What does that imply? :-D

Answer 3

Real climate science research funding generally comes from the government - the DOE, NSF, etc., as shown in your second link. This money goes to both AGW realists and "skeptics" like Lindzen and Spencer.



Then there's the funding going from oil companies to right-wing think tanks. These groups aren't doing scientific research, they're engaging in a propaganda campaign.



Does the scientific funding dwarf the propaganda funding? Of course. But propaganda is unfortunately very effective at misinforming the public.

Answer 4

So, in the United States, it looks like a lot of the AGW research is sponsored by the Government who wants to gain more control over the people. It is funny how the greenpeace one puts all of the blame on the skeptic funding on one company.



As with any science, the positions that are more popular gets the most money whether or not it is good science.

Answer 5

i don't think of that the industry investment inevitably impeaches the outcomes of his examine, however the certainty that maximum folk of climate examine attain diverse conclusions may lead an impartial observer to question his outcomes. worldwide climate exchange, alongside with an significant warming of the planet besides as shifts in rainfall types and different adjustments, is irrefutable. The data that maximum of this modification is via the burning of super parts of fossil fuels is overwhelming.

Answer 6

To elaborate a little on Baccheus' answer, comparing absolute dollar amounts is tricky. If you work for a university or private research institute, administrative overhead ranges from 25-50% (or more). So, it you apply for and win a $100,000 grant, you actually start with between $50,000 - $75,000. Then your department, division, etc. will take an additional administrative percentage.



If you want C-14 dates, it's several hundred per sample. If you want tree-ring dates it's $30/sample (minimum charge is $300).



If you need to collect field samples, all travel and associate costs are paid for out of the grant. Many facilities charge for computer time and other analytic equipment use.



Also, like a for-profit business, the salaries of research technicians and support staff at public institutions can be "billable". That means you have to cover not only their actual take-home salary, but also all of their fringe benefit costs. As I recall, the last time I did that the calculation was: salary + (salary * .25) + (.15 * (salary *.25)). It adds up.



Publishing in a peer review journal also costs money. Color illustrations can cost $1,000 / page. And although the author keeps the copyright, he or she does not have publication rights. As author, you generally get a few free copies of the article, but if you want more you have to pay for them like everyone else.



And that is the fun part.



Here is the US National Science Foundation Grant Proposal Guide:



http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpgprint.pdf



It is 71 pages long, and if you do not follow every single one of their friggin' rules (including everything down to the type and size of font you can use) - exactly, they can just throw your proposal in the trash and not even bother to inform you.



It is far from the "sweet deal" a lot of people think that it is.

Answer 7

@ Hey Dook

people actually deny the holocaust? that's messed up. i've heard of its denial, but not of its funding.



OM

I tried to find in the annual report where the government funds for climate change research, but found no such posting. Obama's major concerns were, as i gathered from the text, the economy, healthcare, green jobs, alternative energy, the economy, the economy, and jobs. on pages 237, 238, and 239 of his annual report, he talks about climate change, but not of its funding.http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2010/2010_erp.pdf

to answer your question, I'm not sure. I would have to side with Jeff on this one.

Answer 8

Public research is public. Private research is private.



A private company funds research for it's use only. A Pharma does cancer research in a competitive effort to develop a better cancer drug. That research does not get shared with other researchers and is therefore less efficient in advancing humanity's understanding of cancer.



Privately funded climate research is conducted for the purpose of gaining a profit advantage by exploiting the changes. There's nothing wrong with that, but you won't see it in the journals because it is not intented to be part of the public advancement of knowledge.



Public research is largely conducted by academics. Their salaries are paid by universities and the incremental costs of the research are covered by grants either from governments or from environmental associations which get their monies largely from donations. The universities that bear the costs are both private and public. You have to decide for yourself whether you'd call research funded by Stanford as public or private. It's a private school. Then researchers often work together and publish together -- and among a single group of authors some may be employed at a private university or a public university.



I personally care little who funds the reseach so long as it is designed well enough to be published in an appropriate journal and other researchers are allowed to compare thier own findings and/or critique the work. You must be careful to separate in your mind actual published reseach and non-scientific rhetoric whether that rhetoric is funded either by Kotch Brothers or Greenpeace. Don't trust any press release that come from any political lobby; trust the research itself.

Answer 9

I doubt you can decide from the information you gave regardless of what side of the fence you are on as you only have a single company for the skeptic side, that being Koch Industries, and linked to a report that listed all the governmental organizations on the realist side. It's far from representative of the whole.

Answer 10

The real answer is right there in your own links, climate change funding is documented and audited, while those funding denial make ever effort to hide the sources.

As for the amounts, much of the funding for climate is being spent on instruments (some satellite based) to improve the accuracy of data, what are deniers spending theirs on, the.funding of a handful of so called experts to appear on chat shows and the many "institutes" that claim "It's not happening" not much that could actually be called science.

Answer 11

1. Climate change is a physical phenomenon. It depends on chemistry and physics, not funding. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH into its causes and effects, and DISINFORMATION about such research are funded.



2. Every good scientist, and they are a majority of their profession -as are good people in most professions- is a skeptic. There is no meaningful distinction between "climate science funding" and "climate skepticism funding."



3. If you are interested in the ratio of

(a) funding for climate related science to (b) funding for DENIAL of the many years of carefully studied peer-reviewed results of that science, then there can be little doubt that that ratio is many times LOWER than the ratio of

(c) funding for research on the history of the Holocaust to (d) funding for denial of the Holocaust.

Answer 12

Soros kicked some money to Hansen.



But skeptics have no funding. According to these clowns, out of one side of their mouths they claim that Big Oil Inc. is funding climate denial, and from the other side of their mouths they say that Big Oil Inc. has dropped denial funding.



So the two imaginary sums add up to zero as near as I can figure.



1-1=0



But AGW funding is massive. Nearly every government, and industry with a vested interest kicks money to prove AGW...

Answer 13

Taxpayers, like you and me.