- Home
- Overheidssubsidies houden opwarmingssprookje in stand
Overheidssubsidies houden opwarmingssprookje in stand
Hoe ambtenaren/wetenschappers er steeds weer in slagen nieuwe milieuproblemen te ontdekken.
Onder de titel, 'My scientists made me shrink your car. How government scientists plunder the till in the name of science, schreef de Amerikaanse sceptische klimatoloog, Patrick Michaels, in 'The Washington Times':
Three years ago, I ran into former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd at a ritzy Northwest Washington restaurant. We exchanged pleasantries, but before long, our conversation became unpleasant. Since climate science is my field, I felt compelled to point out that Mr. Rudds support for a cap-and-trade policy for carbon emissions had recently helped cost him his job as prime minister. Well, what should I have done? he replied. My scientists, I say, my scientists, told me this is an important problem.
Having closely followed implementation of Mr. Rudds cap-and-trade, my response was admittedly a little testy: Your scientists said exactly what you paid them to tell you.
That brief interaction with Mr. Rudd is indicative of a widespread problem: The government of Australia, and pretty much every other nation, funds research scientists and then relies on them for policy guidance. It is in the best interest of these governmentfunded scientists to ensure their fields and therefore their jobs are deemed of great importance. The problem is particularly costly when it comes to environmental science.
In the United States, government-funded scientists are required to produce a National Climate Assessment every four years. The assessment is produced by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a 13-agency behemoth with multibillion-dollar annual funding. Under its empowering legislation, the assessments are for the Environmental Protection Agency for use in the formulation of a coordinated national policy on global climate change. The research program and the individuals who write such reports are the largest consumers of federal largesse on climate science. Would they ever produce a report saying that their issue is of diminishing importance so much so that EPA regulations of greenhouse gases are simply not needed? No, not unless they are tired of first-class travel and the praise of their universities, which are hopelessly addicted to the 50 percent overhead they charge on science grants.
Michaels laakt de kwaliteit van de klimaatmodellen van rond 2000. Toch liggen deze aan de basis van het latere klimaatbeleid.
The reigning assessment ..., which has been considered authoritative and is largely the basis for the EPAs greenhouse-gas regulations. It was missing so much science that I produced an addendum, in exactly the same format as the original, which was actually longer and contained more references. Later this year, the U.S. Global Change Research Program is scheduled to publish its quadrennial replacement. The draft has been circulated for public comment. In its 1,200 horror-studded pages, almost everything that happens in our world sex, birth, disease, death, hunger and wars, to name a few is somehow affected, usually for the worse, by pernicious emissions of carbon dioxide. ...
The main problem is that the new draft ignores the spate of science since 2010 detailing the long-predicted (at least, by some of us) lowering of temperature projections. You can read about this in The Economist, The New York Times, and the United Kingdoms Spectator, but you wont find it in the current research programs document. As our review says, Without the addition of the new projections, the [National Climate Assessment] will be obsolete on the day of its official release.
Later this year, government science goes international with the release of the next Scientific Assessment of Climate Change by the United Nations body that tracks the issue. It suffers from the same problem as the draft research program document because the same people produced both reports. It, too, will serve as the basis for policy, and it, too, will be obsolete the day it is published.
In Big Science, money is power. Money is publications. Money is promotion and tenure, television time, awards, rewards and a permanent ticket out of coach. Theres simply no incentive for scientists to do anything but perpetuate their issues.
This is why, in 2018, when former President Barack Obama is confronted about his mandate of tiny cars because of dreaded climate change, he might say, Well, what should I have done? My scientists, I say, my scientists, told me this is an important problem.
Aldus Patrick Michaels.
Bron hier.
De inmiddels overleden Amerikaanse politicoloog Aaron Wildavsky merkte ooit eens op: 'Man-made global warming is the mother of all environmental scares.' In ons land is de verkondiging van het milieu cum klimaatalarmisme toevertrouwd aan het Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (PBL), dat zich enthousiast van deze taak kwijt en daarbij ijverig door de milieubeweging wordt gesteund. Met steeds weer nieuwe paniekverhalen slagen zij er in de regering tot verdere regelgeving aan te zetten, die een steeds zwaardere belasting voor de samenleving vormt. Bij grote overheidsprojecten is het gebruikelijk dat er vooraf een kosten/batenanalyse wordt gemaakt. Dat geldt echter niet voor projecten die met duurzaamheid hebben te maken, zoals zonne en windenergie. Daar heeft men de kosten/batenanalyse achterwege gelaten in de (foute) veronderstelling dat het allemaal wel goed zat. Het resultaat is megageldverspilling zonder ook maar enig aantoonbaar effect op het klimaat.
Het is een klassiek voorbeeld waarbij een kongsi van belanghebbende groeperingen erin is geslaagd hun deelbelangen als algemeen belang erkend te krijgen, hetgeen hen voor vele jaren de mogelijkheid biedt om uit de staatsruif te eten ten koste van de belastingbetaler. Socialisten hebben in het algemeen minder moeite met dit soort toestanden dan liberalen. Traditioneel zijn liberalen zeer waakzaam om dit soort praktijken te voorkomen. Nu werken zij er actief aan mee. Onbegrijpelijk en onaanvaardbaar!
Voor mijn eerdere DDSbijdragen, zie hier.
Ga verder met lezen
Dit vind je misschien ook leuk
Laat mensen jouw mening weten
Lees ook