http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/a..._cold.html

 

This is encouraging.  There's life coming back to science.  That's the opposite of the false narrative the OP is feebly attempting to peddle.



 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">“Here’s to hoping the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma, and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives in climate science and our policy options,” Georgia Tech scientist Judith Curry wrote this month at her popular Climate Etc. blog.

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">Politics, not science, has been forcing opposing scientific viewpoints aside where they cannot be heard and are not accepted.  Broader perspectives are necessary for real science to exist.



<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, is similarly optimistic. “I think we’re making progress,” Happer said. “I see reassuring signs.”

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">For the first time in years, skeptics believe they can find a path out of the wilderness into which they’ve been cast by the “scientific consensus.” As much as they desire a more open-minded reception by their colleagues, they are hoping even more that the spigot of government research funding – which dwarfs all other sources – will trickle their way.

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">Funding, not science, is what has lead climate research.  Only with a more open mind will there be true progress in climate science, where honesty and real science might be able to replace political agenda and the "snake oil" that's currently being sold in climate research.



<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">“In reality, it’s the government, not the scientists, that asks the questions,” said David Wojick, a longtime government consultant who has closely tracked climate research spending since 1992.

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">While it could take months for such expanded fields of research to emerge, a wider look at the possibilities excites some scientists. Happer, for one, feels emboldened in ways he rarely has throughout his career because, for many years, he knew his iconoclastic climate conclusions would hurt his professional prospects.

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">When asked if he would voice dissent on climate change if he were a younger, less established physicist, he said: “Oh, no, definitely not. I held my tongue for a long time because friends told me I would not be elected to the National Academy of Sciences if I didn’t toe the alarmists’ company line.”

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">Scientist in the field for the sake of science, and not lead lead there to be corrupted by research funding, face professional peril if they do not "toe the alarmists' company line."  Just.  Wow.  Again, this is the opposite of science.



<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">That sharp disagreements are real in the field may come as a shock to many people, who are regularly informed that climate science is settled and those who question this orthodoxy are akin to Holocaust deniers.

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">It's far from "settled" science in the scientific world.  It's only sold that way to the unknowing public.  It's why you see such extremist positions and name calling (so-called "deniers" etc.) to sell the false narrative.



<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">“I think that the vast ‘middle’ will want and seek a more collegial atmosphere,” Georgia Tech’s Curry told RealClearInvestigations. “But there will be some hardcore people (particularly on the alarmed side) whose professional reputation, funding, media exposure, influence etc. depends on cranking up the alarm.”

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">Again, it's worth pointing out the reasons for the extreme viewpoint of alarmism.  Without it, the funding is not sustained at such high levels.  It's also reason for the attacks on any scientists and viewpoints that run counter to theirs.  They will defend their "precious" not unlike Golem, becoming pure beasts when threatened.



<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">“Remember this was a tiny field, a backwater, and then suddenly you increased the funding to billions and everyone got into it,” Lindzen said. “Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist,’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">And that pretty much sums up the reason for the extreme, misaligned viewpoints.  The harder the buy-in, the better the funding.  And unfortunately, the higher the corruption and lack of real "science."



<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">"They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">*mic drop*



<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;"> 

<p style="font-familyomine, serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;">We can only hope climate science can be revived before it's too late.  Otherwise, it's already dead and we're stuck with only flat-Earth "conclusions."

---