Funding for Science

The New York Times recently criticized the Heartland Institute for using donations from the energy industry to fund past events and investigations. The Heartland Institute has made the mistake of complying with the opposition’s rule that funding from the carbon industry would result in falsified scientific results. The Heartland Institute web site brags.

Funding for The Heartland Institute comes from charitable contributions from approximately 2,700 individual, foundation, and corporate donors. Funds from corporations represented less than 16 percent of Heartland’s annual budget in 2007, and no corporation gave more than 4 percent of Heartland’s budget that year. No contributions from any energy corporations are being used to support this conference.

It is always important to consider the source of funds when forming a judgment on the accuracy of information, but this alone is not generally sufficient grounds to disqualify results.  The agenda of donors can influence the results of the research, but doesn’t guarantee false reports.  Money is required for research and it must come from somewhere.  All donors have an agenda on some level. Scientists should proudly and openly seek and use donations and work from the carbon industry.

This article discusses the issue of funding in relation to the reliability of scientific research.  If funding comes from a source with an agenda, can the results of the investigation be valid?  What is at stake for the carbon industry and what is at stake for the UN, who sponsored the research of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?

Oil companies and other carbon contributors normally perform pollution assessments and tests in order to know whether or not they should pursue a particular course of action or not. They need to know the risks before deciding whether or not a particular course of action will be possible and profitable. A falsified assessment by quack scientists would not prevent pollution from ultimately harming other people.  Under a proper system of law this approach would lead to law suits and ultimately jail.

Cap and trade laws present a great incentive for the carbon industry to invest in climate research. With cap and trade looming, the carbon industry has its integrity and even livelihood at stake.  The cap and trade laws would in essence ostracize carbon producers and destroy their ability to profit. It is right that carbon producers would want to gather evidence in order to know whether or not the alarm is a certainty.  With that knowledge they can decide whether or not they should defend themselves or switch to a new line of work.  If the Heartland Institute considers themselves to be honest in their investigations, they should not shun funding from carbon producers.  Money does not corrupt science, it makes science possible.

If we are to consider where research funds and support come from, one must think also think about governmental as a contributor.   The main proponent for alarmism is the United Nation’s IPCC.  The motives for the scientists and politicians on the UN committee are not as easy to identify as motives for oil company representatives, but UN committee members do have a stake in the results.  It is well known that the United Nations pursues a socialist agenda.  Catastrophic global climate change has been used as a way to gain worldwide support for the regulation of energy production and the redistribution of wealth from the most productive sector in the economy.  A scientist who works for the UN would almost certainly have to represent those same views.  Their job would depend upon it. They would have trouble obtaining grants if they were known to support free markets.  It might become difficult obtain grants if they were not finding evidence to support human created catastrophic global climate change.  Politicians in the UN and elsewhere have an interest in promoting alarmism because they can gain power and job stability.  They are elected into office as saviors of humanity and while in office cap and trade laws provide them with increases revenue to create popular social programs.  Does the UN’s support for socialism automatically make the results of their scientists false? No, but it should be considered when evaluating the results of a UN sanctioned study.

The carbon industry, the UN and all of us have a lot riding on the results of the global warming investigation. One way or another, lives will be flipped upside down. Either side may try to fake reality, but they cannot evade the many consequences that come about when reality is ignored. Climate change is important and should be investigated. We need to know whether or not we should build levies and dikes, air conditioners, heaters or vertical crops. No matter how or why the climate changes, violating people’s rights will not solve the problem. Man survives by producing what he needs from nature. He can only create what he needs when his right to do so is protected.