l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 By Peter Wilson
Australian science writer Jo Nova estimates that since 1989 the U.S.
government has spent $79 billion on global warming-friendly climate research
. Nova notes that the "figure does not include money from other western
governments, private industry, [or universities] and is not adjusted for
inflation," and yet even this partial sum is 3,500 times the $23 million
spent by Exxon in the same period. Global warming alarmists however continue
to accuse skeptics of being duped by disinformation from well-funded carbon
polluters, while they seem incapable of recognizing the far greater funding
that supports their own efforts.
Case in point: I attended a "Harvard Thinks Green" program last week, which
promised "6 all-star environmental faculty, 6 big green ideas." (According
to the flyer, "Green is the new crimson.") The most polemical of the six
speakers was medical doctor Eric Chivian, a founder of the International
Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the nuclear freeze group that
won the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize. One of Chivian's big green ideas: "legal
restrictions on oil consumption." Dr. Chivian lashed out at the evil Koch
brothers, enunciating their middle initials as further evidence of their
perfidy: "Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch," who together with "vested
interests" like Exxon-Mobil, have spent "tens of millions of dollars" on a "
disinformation campaign," aided by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
Vested interests? Take a look in the mirror, Dr. Chivian. His speech came
from the podium in Saunders Theatre, a sumptuous wood-paneled auditorium in
H.H. Richardson's Memorial Hall, a clubhouse for the 1% at Harvard
University. Dr. Chivian earns his generous salary as Founder/Director of the
Harvard Medical School's Center for Health and the Global Environment,
which is "designated an official 'Collaborating Center' of the United
Nations Environment Programme." The Center's Corporate Council includes 3M,
Baxter (pharmaceuticals & medical devices), Johnson & Johnson, and Siemens.
These are some deep pockets and vested interests.
Looking further: The sponsor of the evening was the Harvard Office for
Sustainability, which is staffed by fifteen full-time employees, holding
graduate degrees in things like Public Administration and the Sociology of
Religion/Gender Studies. They hold titles like: Manager, Sustainability
Communications; Manager, Sustainability Engagement; Coordinator, Business
and Finance Sustainability Engagement Program; or Coordinator, FAS Green
Resource Efficiency Program.
A separate department called Green Building Services employs seven full-time
employees and manages student volunteer teams at Harvard College, the
Business School and the Law School.
Harvard students can apply for the following 10-hour-a-week internships:
Sustainability Innovation Challenge Engagement Assistant, OFS Events and
Sustainability Engagement Intern, Housing and Real Estate Design Internship,
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Research Assistant, Green Skillet Team
Leader, Green Skillet Assessor, Green Office Liaison and the Green Ribbon
Commission Internship.
Over at the Graduate School of Design there's the Sustainable Design program
G(SD)2. And Harvard Business School has a Green Living Program, "a peer-to-
peer education program" that...well, you get the idea.
These various activities are supported by the Harvard University Task Force
on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, commissioned by President Drew Faust,
which is committed to reduce the University's GHGs through 2016. In other
words, these people will not be losing their jobs any time soon, no matter
what happens at COP-18.
(Obligatory disclaimer: investment in sustainability can produce good things
; improving the efficiency of heating systems, for example, is a worthwhile
goal that requires no further justification. If the foundation of the
program is carbon dioxide phobia, bad decisions will be made.)
Dr. Chivian further explained that climate science is too technical for the
public to grasp, leaving the masses "vulnerable to having the wool pulled
over their eyes." I don't accept the premise that only experts are qualified
to discuss climate science, but it is nevertheless interesting to note that
none of the all-star environmental faculty is a climate scientist. James
McCarthy, a professor of Biological Oceanography and one of the lead authors
of the UN IPCC, comes the closest. His field is related to climate change,
but he studies the effects of climate on ocean life, not the causes of
changing climate. For comparison, here's the Wikipedia entry for Professor
Richard Lindzen, one of the leading skeptics of the anthropogenic global
warming theory:
atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology[,] Lindzen is known for his work
in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone
photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.
The other Green Thinkers were from Harvard Law School, Harvard's Graduate
School of Design (Architecture), the Harvard Medical School, and two from
the Harvard Business School (Management Practice and Environmental
Management).
Dr. Chivian is trained in Psychiatry.
Might not these learned men be vulnerable to having the wool pulled over
their eyes by agenda-driven organizations like the IPCC?
Imagine these considerable efforts at one university multiplied at thousands
of private and governmental institutions. This lobbying network is not only
well-funded and extensive, it also has a built-in mechanism for self-
perpetuation: the green interns and all the students being taught by all-
star environmental professors will supply the next generation with its
Sustainability Engagement Managers. Exxon can't come anywhere close to
competing with this.
Climate change skeptics have reason to be optimistic that global warming
activists are fighting a losing battle. The Durban climate conference,
described by the Wall Street Journal as "a wash out," passed another
meaningless resolution promising action by 2020. At the Think Green event,
Harvard Law professor Richard Lazarus lamented that President Obama used the
phrase "climate change" or "global warming" in speeches 69 times in 2009,
73 times in 2010 and only once in 2011, leading to what he sees as "a crisis
in environmental lawmaking"-his crisis being that nothing is happening. In
other words, climate legislation like Cap and Trade is dead. The scientific
front also brings promising news; mainstream Science magazine reports a
study summarized by The Economist: "Good news at last? The climate may not
be as sensitive to carbon dioxide as previously believed."
Despite this news, don't count on the environmentalists occupying our
universities to pack up their tents and go home. |
|
