'Every year climate science seems to get less sure until I want to shout 'Just vanish back into obscurity until you've got a handle on this mess! Go on, go to your room and don't come out till your predictions last longer than it takes the ink to dry on them." '

Jun 29, 2013 'TinyCO2' commenting at Bishop Hill


Monday, 13 January 2014

Paying for the Davids tackling the Goliaths of CAGW

My previous post noted that sums in excess of $22 billion a year are being spent on climate matters by federal agencies and sub-agencies in the United States, and every single one liable to have a vested interest in continued widespread alarm, at the very least within politics and mass media circles.  Monster agencies.  Goliaths in the game.  But, as the legend goes, a Goliath can be brought down by a boy with a well-aimed catapult.  Some do not even need to be brought down, merely calmed down.  Outside of government, if not outside of government funding, can be found wealthy corporations such as the WWF with a clear financial interest in stirring up fear to maintain their high profile and encourage donations, or the British Broadcasting Corporation which has chosen to promote climate alarm and hinder criticism of it.  These too are Goliaths.

The Davids of resistance to these Goliaths can be found on the blogosphere, and many, possibly, all are operating on budgets in the range between zero through shoestring to relatively modest. What would happen if those of us who admire their work were to make a bigger effort to make regular payments for it?  £5 a month  subscription from a thousand people would surely make quite a difference to many a solitary blogger with a great deal to contribute but also with a need to take care of themselves and their families.   It would also help to encourage larger organisations by providing tangible evidence of support.

So, readers of this blog, what can you afford to spend, month after month in a reliable fashion, for what you admire and think important in the climate saga?  Not all of us have the time, nor feel we have the talent, to write, to analyse, and to study the science or the policies involved in climate alarmism, but we can surely name many people who can to good effect.  Maybe we can chip in from time to time with comments and the odd donation, but maybe we could also tax ourselves to make regular payments?  I’ve worked out a percentage of my quite modest retirement income to spend, and will be looking into the setting up of standing orders to get this established as a routine, regular event.  I hope tens of thousands of others will do the same.  See the links on the rhs of this page for possible beneficiaries. Beneficiaries in the sense that writers of books are beneficiaries of those who buy them, and journalists are beneficiaries of those who buy their newspapers.

Jo Nova, in a comment  in response to Bob Tisdale’s recent announcement of his temporary retirement from full-time blogging because of a shortage of money, has suggested a more organised approach which looks very promising if suitable expertise and administrators can be found.  Her idea is to set up a fund to which people could make tax-deductible contributions, and which would support independent researchers: 

‘Bob, no, you know, I’m not satisfied with this. Not at all! How much would it take to keep you going? If we got 10,000 people to donate $10 a year, would that be enough? What if we made it $1 a month?($120k pa) 
There must be a better way to do this, and we grown-ups need to get serious. It’s crazy that we rely on government-sausage-machine-science, and dutifully pay our taxes of thousands every year but we can’t independently create say 20 full time jobs for people checking and critiquing the government output.
Yes, I’m as bonkers as you and none of us want to ask for money, but in the end we don’t survive on thanks and praise alone. It’s time to be smart. Science needs truly independent researchers. And those truly independent researchers deserve remuneration that means they can send their kids to decent schools, afford health care, fix the bathroom, and go on the odd holiday. At the moment, they’re self-funding — they raise the money through other work and shares
If anyone out there knows how to set up tax deductible non-profits (or understands the feasibility of it – is it worth doing?) you could make a big difference by pointing out where we ought to be aiming, and the short-cuts to get there… the independent real science sector would so appreciate legal and accounting advice.
Greenpeace and WWF can do it. Why are we willing to accept that sceptical scientists can’t?’
I hope something comes of that as well.  Jo Nova can be reached via her own blog:  http://joannenova.com.au/

No comments: