Holier than Thou

So can I assume from all the angst over this that no scientist who is a strong proponent of anthropomorphic global warming has ever accepted money or an honorarium for their research or publication?  May I assume that no environmental group has ever screened who they were going to give research grants to based on the scientist's prior writings and outlook on the topic?

No?   I can't assume those things?  Then what the hell is all the fuss about?  Paraphrasing Casablanca, its like being shocked  (shocked!)  that planned parenthood gives most of their political money to Democrats.  Science today runs on money.  Ask a professor.  It is no longer "publish or perish" it's "get grant money or perish."  Isn't this whole brouhaha really a subset of the free speech debates that are going on today?  In the latter, folks of one ilk or another argue that some speech or position (e.g. holocaust denial) is so outrageous as not to be covered by free speech rights.  Isn't that what this whole debate is about -- ie, are we going to label global warming skepticism as so outrageous and untenable that we are not going to allow money to be spent or speech to be allowed from its proponents?

In that light, it sure raises the stakes on trying to hold onto political power, if politicians are allowed to define what speech, and scientific inquiry, is allowed.

Update:  Whoops, I just saw this.  I think I am on to something.  James Taranto quotes the Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman:

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

  • vinthewrench
  • DaveJ

    You should know by now that all left-wing, activist money comes freely donated by people who CARE, so it is obviously pure, sweet and unbiased.

    Whereas anyone who disagrees is obviously corrupt, ignorant, or both. Also, since 'profit' is so completely out of line with proper social(ist) responsibility, no corporation, except left-wing non-profits, can ever be anything but evil.

    It's been obvious to me for years that the radical left is a religious movement. Of course heresy is a crime.

    Trivial point: anthropogenic (caused by man), not anthropomorphic (turned into man).

  • Rob

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

    The point of the article is to describe an experiment which shows the sun's effect on climate. Why is this tossed out so easily, given the experimental results to back the hypothesis (I'm not aware of the tests to prove man's impact, what are they?).

    1. How can we trust linear models which do not properly predict known data? Am I supposed to believe it will accurately predict the future climate?

    2. And why are scientists still using linear models for describing global climate when newer techniques are available for modeling complex adaptive systems?