Climate Change research funding

'Warmists' are quick to claim that climate change 'sceptics' (or 'deniers') are funded by big business, as though the 'warmists' are the plucky underdogs. Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen's submission to the CRU/Climate Gate inquiry states otherwise and is wort reading in full, but here a few excerpts:

"3 My Understanding of the Issue

3.1 ...It is important, however, for you check my observation, that most climate change since the late 1980s has been government- and grant- funded with the clearly stated objective that it must support a decarbonisation agenda for the energy sector.


3.2 Scientific research as advocacy for an agenda (a coalition of interests, not a conspiracy,) was presented to the public and governments as protection of the planet. This cause of environmental protection had from the start natural allies in the EU Commission, United Nation and World Bank. CRU, working for the UK government and hence the IPCC, was expected to support the hypothesis of man-made, dangerous warming caused by carbon dioxide, a hypothesis it had helped to formulate in the late 1980s and which became "true" in international law with the adoption of the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change.


3.3 This treaty and its protocol does not define "climate", and applies only to anthropogenic warming assumed to be dangerous. In persuading policy makers and the public of this danger, the "hockey stick" became a major tool of persuasion, giving CRU a major role in the policy process at the national, EU and international level. This led to the growing politicisation of science in the interest, allegedly, of protecting the "the environment" and the planet. I observed and documented this phenomenon as the UK Government, European Commission, and World Bank increasingly needed the climate threat to justify their anti-carbon (and pro-nuclear) policies. In return climate science was generously funded and required to support rather than to question these policy objectives. This policy was of course challenged by those unhappy with the proposed government-stimulated replacement of carbon fuels, but this need not concern this Committee beyond noting that it increased the anger of climate "sceptics" who saw science misused for policies they doubted. Others liked the policy and kept quiet. Opponents were gradually starved of research opportunities or persuaded into silence. The apparent "scientific consensus" thus generated became a major tool of public persuasion."

Another 'inconvenient truth'?