The excuse fired for not attracting enough funding.
Unethical companies and politicians try to interfere with science, sure. They don't have a whole lot of success. There's too many universities and think tanks to undermine all of them -- and pro-environmental firms and politicians balance things out a lot.
But -- it doesn't matter. Why? The reason is that the key to fixing climate change is getting rid of fossil fuels (I know that's an oversimplification -- but it is the core of the problem). And that is already a done deal for purely economic reasons. Alternative energy tech -- especially wind, solar, and energy storage, are where the investment money is going becasue the technology has come o fage. "Green energy" is cost-effective or (depending on the technology) son will be. In short, it's now a better dealfor businesses, consumers and utility companies. It doesn't matter what the fossil fuel industry or their tame politicians do. They are obsolete and there's not a damn thing they can do about it.
You either go along with these evil people or get fired.
Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Yet more skeptic nonsense. Professor Moller wasn’t fired at all – he’s retiring. It clearly states his intention to retire on his faculty page.
http://www.otago.ac.nz/csafe/staff/otago...
And for clarity, the bit about retirement isn’t a recent amendment. You can check the timestamp on the page or look at archived versions. Seems to me the skeptics have noticed he’s retiring and fabricated a story around this.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Industry, politics, advertisers, lobby groups, journalists, publishers, special interest groups etc are concerned with promoting whatever best serves their interests. If this means interfering with science then they generally have no qualms about doing so. It affects both sides of the climate change debate which is why, as always, such sources shouldn’t be trusted unless they can corroborate any claims made via independent sources.
Yes, the fossil fuel industry and the politicians that pander to them are definitely attempting to interfere with science.
As for your link, one certainly can't form an intelligent opinion on the firing of a Danish researcher by reading an account in an Australian denial blog.
Do you really think you can?
By the way, researchers that rely on soft money get laid off all the time when their funding goes away. This is not just standard practice in academia, but throughout industry. Maybe since you worked in utilities (essentially monopolies) you never had to worry about that.
And industry, education, dissemination of information, public opinion and the ability to take global community actions for a problem that may or may not be addressable by man and certainly not without a large economic cost.
Yes - there's big money in "climate change" research. Look how people like Mann, Hansen, and Gore have made multi millions selling this scheme.
Exxon-Mobil spent millions trying to debunk Climate Change. They're in the oil business, so what did you expect?
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/good-science-being-undermined.html
The excuse fired for not attracting enough funding.
