When I got heavily into the global warming debate a couple of years ago, all I saw were the contradictions of one side vs the other. When I asked about that, pointing out Fred Singer's writings for example, I wasn't told where his science was wrong, I was told he was corrupted by big oil, end of story
. Taking that at face value, I looked into his funding, and could find no evidence that any money had influenced his viewpoints. So I ignored similar accusations for quite a while as simply unprovable.
Perhaps we all make this mistake. We should have examined the accusation long ago, particularly the origins of it. A good guess is that those who accuse skeptic scientists of corruption are counting on no one actually putting the accusation under hard scrutiny.
I hope to change that. Yesterday, my article about the problems with the 15 year+ accusation against skeptics appeared online at American Thinker, "Smearing Global Warming Skeptics
". And, since the news media has been a bit overly fixated on Al Gore's personal problems lately, I wrote a variation of the story to show how he fits into the accusation, and why it may overtake his current problems - see "Al
Gore's current marital breakdown & 'other' difficulties may be the LEAST of his problems" (link
) over at Mark Gillar's ClimateGate Country Club.
Paraphrasing from my ClimateGate Country Club piece, this accusation is both an obstacle and an opportunity: the so-called global warming crisis has only two legs supporting it, a supposedly infallible IPCC consensus and the accusation I detail at the links above. The mainstream media seems not to want the public to see skeptic scientists chiseling away at the IPCC leg.
What would happen to the other leg, if the mainstream media cast an unbiased eye on the accusation against skeptic scientists?