By Robert Perry

Do you have a point you’d like to make or an issue you feel strongly about? Submit a letter to the editor or a guest column.

Federal grants for “climate research” during the Obama years produced an abundance of climate hysteria research. As of 2016, over 55 billion taxpayer dollars had been spent by our federal government on climate change research. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government gravy train represents a significant challenge to scientific integrity.

One prime example of the scientific corruption of government-funded climate research is Professor Michael Mann. He was embroiled in the Climategate scandal (discovery of emails between climatologists discussing how to skew scientific evidence and blackballing experts who disagreed with their viewpoint). The federal government — which will gain unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed — gave Mann almost $6 million, including $500,000 in federal stimulus money, while he was under investigation for his embarrassing Climategate emails.

Before accepting “scientific results” as valid, interested citizens (and politicians) should consider funding sources of the particular research. Let’s follow the money on the recent report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office on “potential economic effects of climate change.” This report was widely published by the media — including The Bulletin, which runs climate scare articles on a regular basis.

GAO’s report relied on 26 “unnamed experts” and two studies leading to its recommendations on “government-wide priorities to manage (climate change) risks.” For starters, “unnamed experts” should be regarded as suspect — similar to “unnamed sources.”

Follow the money for the two studies used by GAO. Study No. 1 was funded by American Climate Prospectus, which in turn is partially funded by the Risky Business Project, which in turn is funded by billionaire Tom Steyer, who gained notoriety funding anti-fossil fuel campaigns. During the 2016 election cycle, Steyer was the single largest political donor, contributing more than $91 million to Democrats and liberals. He has also pumped $10 million into the Trump impeachment movement. It’s disgusting when you “follow the money.”

Another funding source for study No. 1 was former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who pumped $64 million into an anti-coal campaign. He also donated over $23 million to Democrats and liberals during the 2016 election.

Study No. 2 was developed by Obama’s EPA group — known for its leftist tilt and bureaucratic overreach.

Although GAO audited all climate studies over a two-year period, it managed to cherry-pick only the two studies referenced above.

Cherry-picking is a favorite climate alarmist tactic. Recall the often repeated claim: “97 percent of scientists believe human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.” This 97 percent claim came from a 2009 University of Illinois survey of 10,257 earth scientists that generated 3,146 responses. The survey sponsors included only a subgroup of 77 of the 3,146 scientists to develop their 97 percent claim (or 75 out of 77). This is cherry-picking on steroids! And deceitful manipulation of survey data!

Forbes Magazine (May 30, 2013) criticized “misleading the public about consensus opinion on global warming” stating: “these biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant ‘surveys’ form the ‘best evidence’ global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.”

Over 1,000 international scientists have gone on record challenging “man-made global warming claims.”

Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, 1998 Nobel Prize winner for physics, opined: “Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself. Climate is beyond our power to control. Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the Earth routinely does on its own.”

William C. Gilbert, North Carolina researcher, stated: “I am ashamed of what climate science has become today. The science community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what science has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.”

— Robert Perry lives in Redmond.