Comments to 'Moral Crusades' Article

i got the exjam 2morow innit.

Yes indeed, follow the money. Try to find a university that will hire a researcher that does not buy into "Global Warming is man-made". Notice the discussion about de-certifying meteorologists that don't "toe the line". It's real simple isn't it? Follow the money ... don't support the Global Warming fraud ... don't have a job.

Follow the money, folks. One of the popular denial arguments is that academia will only support pro-warming research and therefore researchers are forced to bias their work accordingly. The big irony here is that just the opposite is true. If you look at the number of articles by actual climatology researchers, the vast majority agree that warming is occurring and an important issue. These researchers are competing for public funding money in an environment where in the US the current administration is clearly not supportive of their work, which means the money is harder to come by. On the other hand, the relatively few anti-warming researchers have a significantly easier time finding funding because the energy industry is flush with cash and has a vested interest in supporting there work. If you believe in capitalism and free markets, the logical conclusion is therefore that either the vast majority of climate researchers are somehow immune to market forces or there is some other driver at work, like dedication to scientific principle and intellectual self-respect. Samuelson touched on this by implying that one of the many claims of energy-industry influence had long ago been discredited - by a denial from the company involved. As though a corporate news release is an unimpunable source of truth. This is about money, and those with the most money at stake are therefore most likely to distort the truth if it is to their economic advantage.

Whether global warming is human-related or not, ice in Greenland is melting. Here in Utah we just finished having the hottest summer in approx 150 years. Engineers and designers can waste their time debating this issue if they wish. I would like to focus more on economic opportunity. Better electric motors, structures, batteries, engines, etc. will ensure the competitiveness of whomever designs and manufactures them. My bias is that this should happen in the US. The byproducts and side-benefits of this focus will be evident and enjoyed by any competent designer, and will be a gift to our grandchildren.

I have been an electrical design engineer for 40 years. I, also, refuse to get my news from the weekly magazines, the evening news, or CNN. About half of what I see on Fox News seems reasonable. I do remember back in the seventies “they” were talking about an ice age heading our way and talking about how to stop it. 40 years is not even a heartbeat in geologic time and we have had a 180 degree reversal in our catastrophic end-of-the-world scenario. I don’t buy it this time either! I read Scientific American regularly and they sound pretty convinced of global warming, but somehow the tone of the articles sound to me like the authors are somewhat biased Once you buy into warming, you must decide if it is caused by nature or mankind? When big money, big media, and big politics get involved, it is hard to find an unbiased researcher. That is another subscription that may not get renewed. Good article.