Yesterday I was browsing the bloglinks to the WaPo article on Global Warming and was led to a site with a rather unique perspective on the issue of climate change:
If Global Warming is a matter of science, ever ask yourself why almost all Global Warming Denialists are conservative Republicans? The reason – a general lack of knowledge and an ingrained propaganda driven agenda.
I found this postulate rather amusing, so I left the following comment:
Interesting. Then why are almost all Anthropgenic Global Warming Activists liberal Democrats? If you’re saying that one side alone has all the answers, then all you are is a partisan hack blinded by ideology.
Which led to a comment war, naturally, culminating with the following threat:
BTW “Doc” – I hope you’re tenured, I wonder what your Dean would think of a Science Professor who is an advocate of Intelligent Design? Must get cold up there in Barron, aye?
What got me was the insistence that research refuting climate change was invalid because of a source of funding, which is absolute nonsense. (What also got me was the attacks that I’m an “Intelligent Design” creationist moron– a smear based upon these two posts.)
Regardless of my arguments on scientific viewpoints, this particular blogger would always go back to attack the funding. Unfortunately, that doesn’t refute the information of any source. As I mentioned, most academics in chemistry have receiving grants from Big Oil (the Petroleum Research Foundation, which has funded projects as diverse as cancer research to solar cell manufacture). Does that mean all of that research is invalidated simply because of the funding?
It’s nonsense. On my blog, countless times, I’ve hammered home flaws in the thinking that humankind is going to destroy the planet with carbon emissions. But trying to argue with our blogger friend was frustrating from his multiple attacks and attempts to shift the debate to something that was completely irrelevant.
I worry about a future where people without science degrees fight against research that was funded by people they don’t like. It’s a complete mischaracterization of academia, and it calls into question the ethics of every single scientists that’s ever received money from a private source.
Oddly enough, our blogger friend insists on believing computer models that predict decades into the future, although there is much standing evidence that warns against putting too much faith into computer models — in any field, not just climatology.
But, as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.