Why Would Scientists Participate in a Scam? (republished from yesterday with links added)
Why would some scientists act dishonorably by participating in a scam the magnitude of the AGW hoax?
Many people cannot imagine why some scientists (whom the media claim to be a "consensus", as if that were meaningful when considering scientific theory) would act dishonorably to their profession by participating in a scam the magnitude of the human-caused-global-warming (AGW) hoax.
The answer is not complicated. In fact, the answer is rooted in the survival instinct all humans possess and is akin to the "publish or perish" maxim of scientific researchers. And I do not refer to the survival instinct in the sense that we need to survive "human-caused-global-warming." No, it is all about funding and the survival of budget cuts.
Those who benefit from the flow of enormous government grants and funding (in universities and government agencies) to study a perceived problem (AGW) have been charged with providing guidance to politicians. In other words, the continued receipt of study funds is dependent upon an ever-increasing concern about the magnitude of the "problem" (in this case, AGW).
Is it any surprise that these researchers continue to find evidence of human-caused-global-warming when, in fact, the planet appears to be cooling over the past 10 or so years, perhaps significantly? As of the beginning of 2011, there has still not been one scientific study to ever identify a human component of climate change. None. Never.
To create the illusion of recent warming, ground station temperature data have been manipulated without explanation or sound scientific basis. This has been going on both at the US's GISS (James Hansen's handiwork) and at the UK's CRU (Phil Jones of "Climategate" fame). Neither Hansen nor Jones can provide legitimate justification for their data manipulations that are a matter of partial record (original data has been "lost", so the record is incomplete). Hansen arrogantly alters ground station records to create the appearance of warming where none has occurred (in fact, in some locations cooling has been altered to give the appearance of warming!).
Should it come as any surprise that these government-paid "scientists" would manufacture "evidence" to support their continued accumulation of funds and power?
What odds would you give the survival of chickens when a fox is entrusted with providing for their security?
Tainted government-supported researchers (Michael Mann's handiwork also comes to mind) support the objectives of politicians who seek greater control over their constituents through massive regulation of perfectly harmless materials that are the byproduct of industrious human activity. Politicians reward these scientists with continued lucrative agency funding or research grants.
It is a dirty political game that costs taxpayers twice. Once in taxes. Again in much higher ("skyrocketing" as promised by Obama) energy costs. If you think $3/gallon gasoline is high, "you ain't seen nothing yet!" All courtesy of corrupt policy from Washington, DC.
Private concerns emerge that are supported by government subsidies to provide alternate energy sources that are not economically competitive with abundant and relatively cheap fossil fuels (coal, oil, and, yes, Nancy Pelosi, natural gas). Government agencies abet the fraud (see EPA's new regulations concerning CO2 emissions) with fraudulently-based burdens on our energy production and use with the predictable consequence of skyrocketing energy costs and the strong likelihood of future energy rationing, even during economic depression (yes, depression ... let's stop kidding ourselves). This energy squeeze will continue to act as a severe obstacle to economic recovery. Almost as much of an obstacle to our nation's well-being as the corrupt politicians who've fostered this economic mess in the first place (all the while pointing the finger of blame elsewhere)!
It has been alleged that the passion of skeptical scientists reflects a hatred for warmist scientists who are advocating the AGW theory. This is not true. Those who oppose warmist mythology ("skeptics") do not hate warmists. They pity them for their weakness and lack of honesty. They may despise their tactics. They may abhor media complicity in the scam. They may find reprehensible the actions of self-serving pseudo-scientists (Hansen, for example) who are motivated by personal aggrandizement and a quest for agency funding. But skeptics do not "hate" these poor warmist souls.
Author of "Looking Out the Window", an evidence-based examination of the "climate change" issue, Bob Webster, is a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s). He is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
