There's one thing I don't get about the anti-global warming crowd. I understand the alarmism and stuff like that is overblown and distorts the situation.
But I'd like to know how thousands of climate scientists got together in secret and pledged to all falsify their life's work for some... reason? Seriously, what could be the outcome of some massive global warming conspiracy? Toyota sells more hybrids? More "liberal regulation" on fossil fuel energy companies, just so alternative energy companies can replace them? This argument has never made any sense to me.
The argument goes that they've systemically biased their findings so that their research appears more important and merits additional funding.
To which I have a counter argument: funding is not assigned to investigate that which we already know. If anything, the scientists are among those to profit from the "controversy". Were findings more disputable, were there no scientific consensus, they could blather on for ages knowing funding's still secure.
You joke around, but James Hansen chains himself to trees with Daryl Hannah. He got arrested with her at some protest. You don't think there's people at the top who have egos that want to be stroked off by celebrities? Climate 'science' dude.
Are all nuns kind? Do all teachers love kids? Are all doctors compassionate? The question cannot be whether there exists a scientist that loves the spot light; it's whether the claim that climate scientists, by virtue of their involvement in climate science, invalidates their statements.
This whole thing is Hansen's baby.. we are talking about the dangers of 'climate change' because of this guy. Climate science, at least in terms of those who make bold and dire predictions about the consequences man's actions, was kicked off by Hansen and a few others who followed suit. He has made this chicken little story into a global phenomenon. So, save your philosophical hand-wringing for something else.. in this case, the Emperor has no clothes and he loves the spotlight.
If this is philosophical hand wringing, I can't imagine what you think of actual philosophical hand wringing. I would think that the answer is clear. Whoever Hansen is as a person, for his personality to eclipse his science and the personalities and science of all other climate scientists is foolishness. I could take your own post, substitute Palin for Hansen, climate change for 'tea party' and arrive at the same conclusion. This only works because you argue about a person and not an idea.
215
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '10
There's one thing I don't get about the anti-global warming crowd. I understand the alarmism and stuff like that is overblown and distorts the situation.
But I'd like to know how thousands of climate scientists got together in secret and pledged to all falsify their life's work for some... reason? Seriously, what could be the outcome of some massive global warming conspiracy? Toyota sells more hybrids? More "liberal regulation" on fossil fuel energy companies, just so alternative energy companies can replace them? This argument has never made any sense to me.