"What's Up With the Weather?" Part 3: The Battle Over Climate Change | NBC 10 Philadelphia
“More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually makes life better,” said Dr. David Legates of the University of Delaware.
When Dr. Heidi Cullen, a climatologist, learned that NBC10 planned to include so-called climate change deniers in our story, she wanted to pull out of our series. She believes giving “equal time” to the other side is “false balance.”
“The fact that we burn fossil fuel is adding to the extremeness of our climate,” said Dr. Cullen.
...
“I can only suggest that perhaps they are being paid to say what they say,” said Dr. Jennifer Francis.
Climate professor Dr. David Legates strongly opposes the idea that manmade fossil fuels are disrupting our climate. He’s associated with several organizations that receive money from Exxon-Mobil and has been called “the mouthpiece of big oil.”
“I’ve given talks at groups that potentially have gotten money from Mobil,” said Dr. Legates.
But Legates says he’s never taken a penny for himself or his research from ExxonMobil. He accuses other researchers of being driven by dollars.
“Climate change has become a very big bandwagon for getting funds,” said Dr. Legates. “One thing universities like and one thing research organizations like is money.”
Posts
2 comments:
"The science is settled / skeptic scientists are corrupt / reporters may ignore skeptics because of the previous two reasons"
AGW promoters created a brilliant 3-point mantra there, one that is at least 16 years old, as I detailed in this article: " 'Media Too Fair to Climate Skeptics', say reporters who've been unfair to skeptics" http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/06/02/media-too-fair-to-climate-skeptics-say-reporters-whove-been-unfair-to-skeptics/
“I can only suggest that perhaps they are being paid to say what they say,” said Dr. Jennifer Francis.
Wow. Cognitive dissonance. If the "deniers" were spokespeople for oil or coal companies, you could reasonably suspect an ulterior motive. But they are not.
Francis demonstrates at least two aspects of a mind building a wall against an idea that challenges fundamental values or her self-worth. She throws out unfalsifiable grounds for dismissal, though if true, there is criminal intent involved in such a deception, enough to have a Gore or Suzuki hiring a gaggle of lawyers to prove it. And she shows a lack of understanding of who those are she disagrees with.
Both of these points are errors of not having followed through with her thoughts. She hasn't checked on linkages, she hasn't even checked on who disagrees with her. Because she doesn't want to create a situation in which her certainty of being right, morally more than technically, of being The Good Person she sees herself to be, comes into doubt.
For the committed, a challenge to CAGW theory presents an existential crisis. Many of us will sit and wait for the men in uniform to take us away rather than face the fact the universe is not the way we need it to be.
Post a Comment