Assuming money corrupts and problems of false equivalence

The climate change related issue of mankind’s doomsday influence on Gaia is getting touchy. The latest is a push by Democratic Party elected representatives based on the assumption that any money used by those who do not agree with them is certain evidence of improper bias. James Rust reports on Stifling Climate Research & Opinion: Another Desparado Mistake

“In the past few weeks, statements of scientists challenging the hypothesis that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels is causing catastrophic global warming are being criticized on ad hominem grounds. The charge is that there exists an inherent conflict-of-interest, owingto their sources of income, specifically income from fossil-fuel companies or pro-fossil-fuel organizations otherwise.

“The starting point (it was surely orchestrated) was the attack on Dr. Willie Soon by the February 21, 2015 New York Times article, “Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher,” by Justin Gillis and John Schwartz.”

“Mr. Gillis and Mr. Schwartz masquerade as science reporters, while doing the bidding of those promoting catastrophic global warming from using fossil fuels. They shortchange the scientific method and implicitly want stopped research into questioning the veracity of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. Their work has inspired others in the U. S. Congress to challenge freedom-of-scientific research.”

“Adding insult to injury, this announcement was issued by the office of Senator Edward Markey”

“Letters of this nature shake-up university presidents’ confidence in their faculty members. With the short time for reply to these lengthy demands, the university presidents and professors will suffer great burdens. Due to the vast amount of university funding coming from federal sources, Congressman Grijalva’s demands may coerce university presidents to explore means of terminating professors cited.”

“Does Michael Mann of Penn State University have to provide all his financial disclosures for the past 20 years when he provides testimony or interviews with the media? The same could apply to Gavin Schmidt with NASA-GISS. We should not forget James Hansen, who used to be with NASA-GISS, flew to the United Kingdom to testify in the defense of Greenpeace activists on trial for the October 8, 2007 vandalism of the Kingsnorth coal-fired power plant. How has former Vice President Al Gore increased his net worth by millions since leaving office?”

“The conflict-of-interest on climate science is the most severe for those collecting funds from the U. S. government whether it is in the form of loans, research grants, or salaries. The top administrators in all federal agencies like Departments of Energy, Agriculture, Interior, EPA, NASA, etc. have been vetted on their views catastrophic climate change is caused by fossil fuels. With the exception of EPA’s Dr. Carlin, I have never encountered a published view of a federal employee questioning catastrophic climate change is caused by carbon dioxide. The penalties from this conflict are too severe of loss of pay increases, promotions, or dismissal.”

“The problems of writings and testimony of U. S. government supported scientists has been demonstrated for years. In November 2009, one thousand e-mail communications among researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and United States researchers showed attempts at adjusting global temperature data and stopping publications of researchers questioning human-caused global warming.”

That last point is one that some are using to say “both sides do it.” The problem is that Climategate, the lawsuits with Dr. Mann, or other supposed ‘Republican’ witch hunts are based on evidence and seeking explanation for assertions and conclusions and statements. That is an entirely different matter than the ad hominem which goes after implied or assumed guilt without any evidence to support it other than not liking what someone says. What makes for the “desperado mistake” is desperation. The facts and evidence do not line up with desired results; reality does not support fantasy. That means one must defend the indefensible and that requires shutting out the unpleasant reality, censoring anyone who tries to bring it to the fore, and all the mechanisms the mind can create to avoid the real world.

Comments are closed.