Follow the Money to Find the Real Climate Hoax

It is reasonable to believe that one's monetary interest in an issue will affect one's stated opinion. So, here is a quick account of the money involved in each side of the Global Warming debate.

On the side that states global warming is real, we have the scientists. Earth science, under which climate science is a sub-set, is funded by NASA and the NSF. Their budgets in 2010 were approximately

• NSF: $0.9 billion
  
• NASA: $1.4 billion
  

Science does not have much of a budget in this country outside of government funding. I would expect Europe to contribute a similar amount to its scientists, and smaller amounts from developing countries like China and Brazil. So, science in the U.S. brings in no more than $2.3 billion per year studying the climate; worldwide I would guess $5 billion per year.

On the side with an interest in denying global warming, I will consider money in the energy sector.

• The energy sector contributed $354 billion to the economy in 2010 (NIPA table 1.5.5). About 85% of the energy the U.S. uses is from fossil fuels, so fossil fuel industries probably contribute about $300 billion to the U.S. GDP.
  
  • Renewable energy makes up 8% of US energy, so it might bring in $27 billion per year.
• 3 of the top 5 Fortune 500 companies deal in fossil fuels. The combined revenue of those 3 companies, Exxon, Chevron, and Conoco, in 2010 was $736 Billion. Their profit was $60.9B.
  
• The Energy Information Service reports financial data from 30 major energy companies, which together account for about 43% of oil and natural gas production, and 78% of U.S. refining capacity. "In 2009, operating revenues of [these] companies totaled $1.3 trillion, which is equal to 13 percent of the $9.8 trillion in revenues of the Fortune 500 corporations."
  

So, in terms of profits, the fossil fuel industry brings in at least $60 billion a year. If one looks at revenues, the number could rise over $1 trillion per year.

Assume for a moment that money really drives the global warming debate. How much more incentive do those with vested interests in fossil fuels have in distorting the truth? For those looking to cash in on telling lies about scientific facts, how much more likely are they take the side of the fossil fuel industry? Considering profits in the U.S., the fossil fuel industry has 25 times more incentive to lie. Considering revenue, which is probably the proper metric for comparing against total science funding (scientists only pocket a some of the money spent on science) the anti-global warming crowd has 430 times more incentive to lie.

That's my effort to "follow the money." I'm sure there are other numbers one can use, so if anyone has better ones, I'd love to hear about them. However, I seriously doubt that any conclusion will be drawn aside from the obvious one: fossil fuels are far more lucrative than global warming science. It is the anti-global warming crowd that has the most financial incentive to lie.

On the Aggrieved White Male

Men's wages (in real terms) have declined steadily since 1965. This may have resulted from many causes: union busting, the loss of manufacturing jobs to foreign countries, an influx of immigrants.

However, one of the most visible likely causes is that the traditional male workforce is now competing with a larger fraction of Americans -- women and minorities have entered the workforce in huge numbers. These groups have traditionally commanded lower wages. Moreover, with women entering the workforce, the argument that males need higher wages to support their families has lost traction.

If I am right, this drives the resentment gives GOP "dog whistles" so much traction. Ironically, though, they are suffering from the free-market competition the GOP (and neoliberals in general) advocates should be driving the economy. It is also, in a sense, the fault of progressive Democrats for doing the right thing, and advocating equal rights.

This will make addressing the concerns of the aggrieved white males difficult. We will need to strengthen unions, so that wages rise as the economy improves. We will also need to keep pushing our culture to embrace equal rights, with one battle being to make it acceptable for men to support their families in roles traditionally taken up by women.

The Case for Global Warming, as Briefly as I can State It

My premise is that in any scientific debate, all phenomena, natural or man made, must have mechanisms producing them.

Fact #1: The Earth has warmed at a rapid rate over the past 3 decades.

Fact #2: The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased significantly since measurements started in the 1960s.

Fact 3#: Human burning of fossil fuels, burning of forests to clear land, and ploughing of land for agriculture have released more than enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to account for the increase in its concentration.

Fact #4: All things else held equal, increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should make the Earth warmer.

No mechanism or combination of mechanism has been demonstrated to negate the warming effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Therefore, human inputs of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the only current, scientifically-valid theory for explaining why the Earth has been warming. Although the nature of these latter true statements are different from the first four facts, as accurate characterizations of the scientific consensus, they could also be regarded as "facts."

Libertarian Scavenger Hunt

In any good debate, it is important to have facts at your disposal. This is a virtual scavenger hunt that is designed to illuminate the practical effectiveness of libertarianism.

• 1 point for examples of industries that functioned markedly better after deregulation.
  
• 1 point for each privatization scheme that produced a better product or service at a better price.
  
• 2 points for each technology that is currently important to our economy that was not enabled by government funding.
  
  • (For the Ron Paul progressive, 1 point for technology that received government support, but not military funding.)
• 2 points for unregulated mining (or resource extraction) companies that have not experienced major environmental or industrial accidents.
  
• 3 points for each country with railroads built without government subsidy.
  
• 5 points for each country with roads built entirely by the private sector.
  
• 5 points for each country with a productive food system that is unsubsidized and unregulated.
  
• 5 points for each country with electricity built without government subsidy.
  
• 10 points for each country without government-run health care system where longevity is beyond 70 years.
  
• 10 points for each country with a strong industrial sector in which the government has had no influence.
  
• 10 points for each country without free, publicly-provided schools in which the literacy rate is above 80%.
  
• 50 points for any first-world country functioning exclusively on libertarian principles.
  

Please use the comments section to post your results, with links if possible. Also feel free to make suggestions for other topics to include in the scavenger hunt. I consider this a work-in-progress.

I can't offer any substantial prizes, but I will mention anyone getting more than 5 points on my Twitter feed... to all 17 followers who are not spam bots.

Poverty is not a Culture

Throughout the GOP primary, candidates have been conflating isues of race, culture, and poverty. Their message is that the Obama administration is trying to build a culture of entitlement. At the same time, I have heard it said that, in the U.S., it is the cultures of certain minorities that hold them back (or allow them to succeed). Here is why I take issue with these claims.

A member of the majority can easily choose to associate themselves with any number of sub-cultures that reflect their interests and values. To be blunt, white people can be preppies, yuppies, hipsters, hippies, slackers, potheads, surfers, skaters, bikers, outdoorsmen, jocks, gym rats, geeks, nerds, gamers, metalheads, good-ol' boys, rednecks, evangelicals, pagans, goths, greens, vegans, freegans, professionals, regular Americans, or a host of other things. At first sight, we judge white Americans by the subtle clues they give off about their sub-culture. We see how they dress, how they groom themselves, and how they carry themselves. We put them into categories. However, they have a lot of control over which category we decide on.

A racial minority, however, gets judged first and foremost by the color of their skin, the texture of their hair, and the shapes of their bodies and facial features. Of course, minorities also choose any of the above sub-cultures for themselves. It's just that people of other races (not just those in the majority) don't often bother to look beyond racial features to the subtle things that reveal what a minority values. As a result, people end up assuming those of other races fit into the narrow stereotypes portrayed in the media. So, you hear stupid things like, "It's the gangsta rap culture holding urban black youth back," when most fans of that genre of music are white, suburban, and not particularly held-back. Or, you hear people praise Asians for not joining gangs, blissfully ignorant that poor, urban Asian teenagers often do exactly that.

This is not to say that minorities don't have shared experiences. They do. The biggest one is how other people reflexively treat them. However, that's not their culture. Those interactions are dominated by other peoples' "cultures."

The reason that so many blacks are poor in this country is that slavery and segregation enveloped the first 300 years of black experience on this continent. It takes a while to work up from poverty, especially when it is concentrated. Economic mobility in this country is not as great an equalizer as some would want us to believe.

On the flip side, recent Middle Eastern, African, and Asian immigrants do fantastically well in this country, with relatively high educational attainment and earnings. This is because it is difficult to immigrate from those distant continents, so the people getting their shot at the American dream are likely to be well-educated and/or well-financed. Hispanics, arriving from the same landmass that this country is on, tend to be poorer and less educated.

So, no, it is not a minority's culture that keeps them poor. It's a stupid thing to think -- nobody values being poor. Having to worry about where your next meal will come from, whether the electricity and heat will stay on, or whether there will be a roof over your head is far, far more exhausting than the nine-to-five jobs those of us with college degrees have. Instead, what makes it hard to succeed in this country are the challenges of simply being poor. What's more, this is exacerbated by the racism directed toward those that are part of groups more statistically likely to be poor.