- CC writes: “Why do you think the scientific community has been self-serving? Please offer some examples.”
- EM responds: “… if you think that all climate lobbyists are doing what they do only in order to “save the planet”, you are being extremely naïve in your world view. When there is money to be made, as with any issue, it becomes highly publicized. This is my biggest critique of the the entire AGW debate. It’s truly a travesty that our two-party system turned this issue into a political one instead of a humanitarian one. Climate sciences would benefit greatly if AGW was viewed outside of the political spectrum.
Now I’m getting the impression EM doesn’t know his subject near as much as he might think. Talking about money involved, come on, no-one is bigger than the oil companies. Why does EM ignore all that?
The “politicization” of “climate science” was a deliberate self-serving decision with roots deep into the Republican Party. Scott Church has done a nice job of pulling together some of the history, it is a bit dated, but that doesn’t make it less accurate. Now with these avarice-blinded oligarchs taking over the reigns of our US government this might interest more people than it has in the past.
___________________________________________________________________
Overview - Climate Change Astroturf Fronts
The phrase astroturf was originally coined by Senator Lloyd Benson to denote large scale political lobbying efforts funded by industry and/or well-funded special interests that are deliberately designed to give the appearance of being “grassroots” movements (hence, the reference to an artificial grass product). It can be (and often is) practiced by any special interest, especially those with deep pockets. But in recent years the practice has been dominated by Far-Right special interests. Nowhere is this more apparent than with global warming.
There is almost universal acceptance in the scientific community that global average temperature has been rising at historically unprecedented rates for the last century, and that this is very likely due to human activity. There is also consensus that this increase will severely impact the biosphere during the coming century. A wealth of data from a wide range of atmospheric, geophysical, and biological science fields supports these conclusions.
Though there is disagreement as to the nature and extent of the impacts we can expect, and how best to respond to them, few published scientists dispute the overall picture. Furthermore, this consensus is ultimately non-partisan.
