Sensenbrenner (R-WI)- Questions Dr. John Holdren (Video)-the “Science Czar”/Follow the Money

At the December 2, 2009 Select Committee on Global Warming’s hearing, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner questions Dr. John Holdren, the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Sensenbrenner does a brilliant job of questioning John Holdren, the “Science Czar”. Of course, it’s politicized science that he’s the Czar over, of that there is no doubt.

Click here for Gateway Pundit’s article-Obama’s Socialist Science Czar Grilled at Global Warming Hearing (Video) -he has the text of Holdren’s talking about what a “trick” is.

We’ll get to the bottom of the ‘controversy’ Holdren, says. I’ll bet they will, I think what he means is …they’ll find out who hacked into those emails because the embarrassing result is obvious.

The chairman of the Academy of Science panel, Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist Gerald North, confirmed in an interview Wednesday that Holdren was right, not Sensenbrenner.

“The conclusions that we came to were essentially the same as the hockey stick” theory that Mann proposed, North told The Associated Press. North said even if Jones, Mann and others had done no research at all, the world would still be warming and scientists would still be able to show it.

Well of course they were; the obvious point that the AP avoids and skates around is – NASA, the climate change experts at the Universities and a whole industry has popped up based on the promulgation and promotion of the global warming lie. They had a VESTED INTEREST in keeping it going; and they so wanted to keep it going that they agreed with results that were put together by faulty data that had certain periods of historical warming completely eliminating in order to produce the long discredited hockey stick graph.

The more they sounded the global warming alarm, the more money they got for ‘research’.

Of COURSE they agreed with the hockey stick graph; that graph brought all kinds of grant money.

Here are some specifics on what kind of money we’re talking about.

Climategate: Follow the Money

Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change “consensus.”

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents leaked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he’d been awarded in the 1990s.

the European Commission’s most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that’s not counting funds from the EU’s member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA’s climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA’s, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. American states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls “green stimulus”—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

These AGM religionists have had a financial interest in keeping this hoax moving; and for politicians it’s a goldmine and a pathway to more power.