In the quest to not only represent one side of the argument on this blog (yeah, right!), here's some filth I came across today:

"It's gradually becoming evident that much so-called "scientific" activity has — especially within the past 20 years or so, but historically as well — become a corrupt, agenda-driven enterprise, with the results of a given study very often depending more on who funded it or on the politics and preconceptions of those conducting it than on pure scientific enterprise or the disinterested integrity of the researchers."

This guy's bitter!

"A significant part of the problem is that scientific research has become a variant of the television show "Family Feud." That show, you'll remember, rewarded people for coming up with the same answers as those revealed by a survey of audience members. Now, however, instead of "Name three things you find in the bathroom," you're more likely to hear "Name three global conditions that could disastrously affect mankind's future on earth." Survey says: Global warming. Nuclear war. Unregulated telemarketers."

Real bitter!

"It's no surprise, for instance, that during the Clinton administration it was very difficult to get a climatological study funded by a Federal Agency if you weren't damn sure your results were going to show that in less than a century we're going to experience the catastrophic effects of a rapidly warming climate on a global scale. Forget it if your study didn't paint a grim picture of polar ice caps melting, sea levels rising, and a veritable jungle of plant life gradually taking over to choke out many other forms of life, forms of life which, damn it, deserve to survive. And it wouldn't hurt a bit if your study which confirmed the "fact" and dangers of the impending warm-up found a way to blame humankind, especially industrialized humankind, and even more especially American industrialized humankind, for the disaster that was about to befall humanity."

Bitter, and can't substantiate his claims. No wonder he didn't receive any funding.

"If it hadn't been for the fact that George W. Bush has been occupied with cleaning up the mess left by Bill Clinton's ignoring the real threats to our nation's safety, such as Islamist terrorism, while concentrating on ginning up fears about global warming, I would argue that the Bush Presidency would be busy turning the tables and selling us on global cooling."

"Real" threats can be quite a relative term. Catastrophic events happening at a low frequency (though killing thousands at a time) are certainly real, yet a slow warming that could have potentially greater human impacts [than just, knock on wood, this one event] will certainly also have "real" repurcussions. Problem is that as opposed to terrorism, if we confirm anthropogenic global warming too late we may not be able to do very much to reverse it except wait for the CO2 to cycle out of our atmosphere. And that takes a very long time. The potential benefits of developing less-polluting technologies in the US and exporting those to Kyoto nations (and later to developing nations) are likely to outweigh the pricetag even if it turns out that thousands of highly qualified scientists were wrong. On that note, I have yet to see reliable evidence that a measured response to global warming would have ruined our economy. No, Bush isn't bashing global warming research just for the heck of it; it's primarily designed to shield his oil industry buddies and to hold greater power over the money we send to Russia.

and finally:

"Despite the fact that we have no credible evidence either way that the planet is cooling down or heating up..."

What planet is he talking about?