Global Warming: Are Scientists Being Pressured for Political Reasons?!?!
I've heard that scientists are, in fact, being pressured concerning global warming research for political reasons. It's just that, unlike in this MSN article, the pressure is by liberal groups to support global warming dogma. MSN only cares about political pressure when it's against their own cherished beliefs.
Consider this article in last April's Opinion Journal. "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis." But wait, aren't scientists supposed to be more concerned with The Truth! than with attacking one another over unfalsifiable eco-propaganda? What a naive question. Seriously, it's cute when you ask things like that. So child-like. So innocent. Let me ask this question: if one scientist goes to Congress and yells "we're all gonna die!!!" and another goes to Congress and yells "everything is just fine!!!" which of the two will get federal funds for more research? That's right, let's follow the money:
"After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today."
Questions of money and intimidation aside, consider that even if you believe humans are causing global warming, you're still left with the quandary of trying to decide which doomsday scientist actually knows what he's talking about. NRO's Steven Hayward has an interesting article about the wildly conflicting theories of doomsday eco-warriors. Here's a key quote:
"Even the catastrophic scenarios painted by enthusiasts clash. In one extreme case, the Greenland ice sheet and much of the polar ice caps could melt, raising the global sea level by as much as 30 feet, inundating billions in coastal areas. (Keep in mind, though, that such a scenario would take decades to play out, unlike a tsunami.) But hold on: A variant of catastrophe theory holds that warming might cause the Greenland and polar ice sheets to thicken and bring on a new ice age — the scenario of the movie The Day After Tomorrow. Incidentally, the sea level would fall by several feet, creating new opportunities for beachfront development."
If even the true-believer eco-nuts are this far apart on their computer models, why give either of them any credence?
Also: a promo for Sarah Silverman's new film, "A Very Convenient Truth." It's meh at best. B- idea, C+ execution. Like this blog.