The annual James Hannam climate change debate Sept 17, 2012 4:56:46 GMT
Post by fortigurn on Sept 17, 2012 4:56:46 GMT
You're equivocating. The claim of yours we're investigating is that massively more money is being spent upholding what you call 'the orthodoxy' than is being spent to generate AGW skepticsm.
The fact is however, the organizations you cite are not spending money to uphold what you call 'the orthodoxy'. They are spending money to gather and analyze data, regardless of whether that data and the conclusions drawn from it supports 'the orthodoxy', the scientific consensus on AGW.
In addition, much of the money spent by organizations you identify as supporting 'the orthodoxy', is spent cross-checking, examining, and verifying scientific hypotheses and conclusions concerning AGW; everything is analyzed critically, by multiple independent sources specifically attempting to falsify the conclusions drawn. That is science.
None of the organizations you cite are giving money to scientists on the condition that they come up with reports supporting the consensus view on AGW. In contrast, organizations such as the Heartland Institute are giving money to scientists on the condition that they come up with reports intended to generate skepticism and doubt about the consensus on AGW. They are not spending money on having those reports cross-checked by independent sources, or subjected to falsification procedures, and most of the time they are avoiding peer review by selective publication. That is propaganda.
So no money is being spent specifically to prop up 'the orthodoxy', and those organizations you identify as supporting 'the orthodoxy' actively support procedures critical of the conclusions drawn, aimed at verifying and falsifying them through multiple independent peer review.
In contrast, millions has been spent with the specific view of generating skepticism and doubt concerning the existing scientific consensus, whilst avoiding peer review, critical examination, and standard falsification procedures.