Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, pump out more results and you'll get more funding - but the flip side of that coin is that if you utterly demolish those same results at a commensurate rate you will also receive more funding. There's as much money to be had in criticizing the findings of others as their is in the findings themselves. There is no "modern capitalistic science" conspiracy at foot- not even an accidental one.

It should be noted that Lindzen is not a skeptic of AGW, but of catastrophic AGW. It should also be noted that his major publication on the subject has been discredited and that he himself, after reviewing the criticism offered to it, conceded that he had handled his data very poorly, leading to fundamental flaws in his competing theory.

AGW -can be- a boogeyman that political forces -can leverage- to push an agenda. But that doesn't actually mean that this is what AGW -is-. The evidence for AGW is not low, it is phenomenally robust. Not only do we have the data that shows the warming trend, we understand why our activities have this effect. We also understand how the same trend can be accomplished in the absence of our activities (which has happened in the past), and in understanding this we can conclude that those parameters have not been met in the present. IOW, of all of the things that we know -can- be a cause for this sort of warming (the list is long), the only thing operating right now at any demonstrable level is human activity.

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical about any scientific findings, or proposals you might see backed by a political body. Nothing at all. There simply comes a point where skepticism can not be maintained in earnest in the face of evidence. There is still plenty of room for skepticism with regards to projections and predictions made by any particular body concerning the effects of AGW, but AGW itself is simply an expression of chemistry and physics. Certain gases have certain effects - this is a demonstrable reality. We are releasing those gases into our atmosphere - this is a demonstrable reality. As we release those certain gases into our atmosphere we have noticed a warming trend - this is a demonstrable reality. We are not aware of any other contributing factor currently in effect that could account for this trend - this is a demonstrable reality. There you go, the core of AGW. If someone goes "Day After Tommorrow" on you, feel free to laugh and be skeptical - however, there really isn't much to be skeptical about with regards to whether or not gasses have certain effects, and that releasing them into our atmosphere will produce them.