Man-Made Global Warming? Follow the Money

It's a trait of human nature that people can be influenced with small amounts of money. Imagine what happens when then they get tantalized with a whole bunch of money. Unfortunately, some advocates in the man-made global warming (MMGW) debate have been highly compromised by filthy lucre. It turns out that one of the greatest of these is the supposedly impartial NASA Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen.

Part of the mantra of the man-made global warming advocates is that everyone on the opposing side is bought and paid for. They have often cited specious claims that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) sought to undermine the theory of MMGW by offering scientists $10,000 to speak out against it. The reality, however, was not that cut and dried:

The American Enterprise Institute offered scientists, including some who in no way can be seen as allies of the so-called "skeptic" camp, $10,000 to review several thousand pages of scientific material from the most recent United Nations IPCC climate change report and write an original piece of 7,500-10,000 words reflecting their view of it.

But here is something that is cut and dried. James Hansen of NASA, one of the world's foremost advocates of the MMGW theory, received $720,000 in influence money from George Soros, who desperately wants to prove that MMGW is real.

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?

That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.

That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.

Yes we can follow the money, all right. But it's not where MMGW advocates tell you from their Land of Oz that it is. Besides pointing to government scientists who lose their grant money if they don't prophesy a doom that requires their continued services, the money points to George Soros. Everyone already knew that. But it is the height of irony that James Hansen is also in on the take, courtesy of Mr. Soros.

Why can't they just debate the MMGW theory on its merits? Because they know they'll lose.


  1. That's a delicious irony. But nobody in the MSM will report it, so only those that care a great deal will find out about it.

  2. When did Soros offer this money? If it's recently it doesn't have much to bear on the current debate, since the evidence of man-made climate change has been building for some time.

    Money on the other side, however, has been pouring in for years.

    It's also important to look at scale. If you have 10 scientists saying that man-made climate change isn't happening, and 8 of the 10 get money from, say big oil, and on the other side you have 1,000 scientists saying it is with one or two being paid by left-wing philanthropists, it makes a big difference in credibility.

    I'd also want to be sure of Soros' intentions. Is he justing wanting the evidence for evidence sake to prove the deniers as wrong, or it it to get something done about it?

  3. Jennifer,

    Based on comments of yours I've read before, you seem to be a fair person.

    I'd be interested to find out from you where the money "has been pouring in for years" on the anti-MMGW side, because I don't believe it. This is what I was alluding to in the article with regard to American Enterprise Institute. The "big oil" claim doesn't hold much water with me--what holds much more water is that people who work for the government get big bucks to continue their work for the government IF they say that MMGW is real.

    I'm a fair person, too, and if you can show me these facts, I'd being willing to change my mind on the issue. But so far, I haven't seen them.

  4. I have a blog containing good information on global warming. Ozone has doubled since the mid-19th century due to chemical emissions from vehicles, industrial processes and the burning of forests, the British climate researchers wrote. Carbon dioxide has also risen over that period. History of global warming is very deep since 1850.


Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog