Russians Freezing to Death during Global Warming Period

Reports are coming in that “Russia is enduring its harshest winter in over 70 years, with temperatures plunging as low as -50 degrees Celsius [-58 Fahrenheit]. . . . The country has not witnessed such a long cold spell since 1938, meteorologists said, with temperatures 10 to 15 degrees lower than the seasonal norm all over Russia. Across the country, 45 people have died due to the cold, and 266 have been taken to hospitals.”

How inconvenient for Global Warming advocates.

Global Warming fears are not about science; it’s about government (tax-payer) grant money.

Scientists live or die by grant money. A long time ago universities began to realize that there’s big money to be made in doing research for the government.

Campus protests in the 1960s and early 1970s were often directed at schools that were doing work for the “Military-Industrial Complex.” The Sterling Hall Bombing that occurred on the campus of the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1970 was committed by four young people as a protest against the University’s research connections with the US military during the Vietnam War. It resulted in the death of a university physics researcher. The bombers were after the Army Math Research Center (AMRC) that was housed in the building.

The Manhattan Project, which began in 1939, was led and developed by university professors. The Project eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly $2 billion ($22 billion in current value). The majority of the money came from the Federal government.

Research is big business that is most often driven by ideology. Those who know how to write the grants get the money.

A 2005 study in the journal Nature surveyed 3247 US researchers who were all publicly funded by the National Institutes of Health which is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services and is the primary agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and health-related research. It consists of 27 separate institutes and centers. Out of the scientists questioned, 15.5% admitted to altering design, methodology or results of their studies due to pressure of an external funding source.

With this very brief background study, should we be surprised if scientists who are pushing Global Warming as a man-made disaster would be reluctant to criticize the claim if they knew their funding would be cut? There are big bucks in Global Warming. Those who are pushing it are mostly ideologues with a larger political agenda.

Most Americans have an idealized opinion of scientists, that they are somehow detached from the mundane world of power, prestige, and fortune.

Scientists are just like everybody else. They like money, prestige, and noteriety.

We shouldn’t be surprised that climate scientists might fudge the evidence to keep the grant money coming in. Who’s really getting harmed? Anyway, the kids need new shoes and an investment portfolio so they can get into the best universities so they can work for a university that gets grant money.

If these scientists and politicians were really concerned about Global Warming, would 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists, and 98 world leaders meet in far way places for a Climate Summit? ((Andrew Gilligan, “Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges,” Telegraph (December 5, 2009).)) Why not set up a teleconferencing system? Really show the world what can be done to “save the planet.”

More than 1200 limos were called into service for a meeting in Copenhagen in 2009. Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen’s biggest limousine company, said that there were not enough limousines in the country to fill the demand. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden,” she says. This does not count the huge carbon footprint that was created by the number of private jets (more than 140) that were used. The eleven-day conference, including the participants’ travel, created a total of 41,000 tons of “carbon dioxide equivalent.”

It’s a scam. Gary Sutton, writing in an online article for Forbes, made the point:

Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today’s scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work. ((Gary Sutton, “The Fiction of Climate Science,” (December 4, 2009).))

So the next time someone dogmatically asserts that the majority of scientists believe in Global Warming, ask your antagonist how much grant money he’s getting?