Holier than Thou
So can I assume from all the angst over this that no scientist who is a strong proponent of anthropomorphic global warming has ever accepted money or an honorarium for their research or publication? May I assume that no environmental group has ever screened who they were going to give research grants to based on the scientist's prior writings and outlook on the topic?
No? I can't assume those things? Then what the hell is all the fuss about? Paraphrasing Casablanca, its like being shocked (shocked!) that planned parenthood gives most of their political money to Democrats. Science today runs on money. Ask a professor. It is no longer "publish or perish" it's "get grant money or perish." Isn't this whole brouhaha really a subset of the free speech debates that are going on today? In the latter, folks of one ilk or another argue that some speech or position (e.g. holocaust denial) is so outrageous as not to be covered by free speech rights. Isn't that what this whole debate is about -- ie, are we going to label global warming skepticism as so outrageous and untenable that we are not going to allow money to be spent or speech to be allowed from its proponents?
In that light, it sure raises the stakes on trying to hold onto political power, if politicians are allowed to define what speech, and scientific inquiry, is allowed.
Update: Whoops, I just saw this. I think I am on to something. James Taranto quotes the Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman:
I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
