not a huge deal, but worth a reference point. the problem of advocacy is clear. it seems apparent that the strategy over the last few years was to pump out as much evidence as they could to make their case that the earth is a fragile place when you can show that the planet is much more resilient than many argue and predict, then there is a problem because the whole premise gets undermined http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...on-rainforests-were-wrong-study-suggests.html
Don't laugh Adam, you just about nailed it. When the very small field of climate science was funded to the tune of about 170 million a year, it was honorable. When nearly overnight, it suddenly jumped more than ten fold to over 2 billion a year, it was suddenly flooded with cadres of opportunists, who obviously entered it for all the wrong reasons.
I respectfully disagree. I believe the "scientists" who were there with the $170 million are the opportunists. They began a field of science for political purposes. The next time the climate is studied in unbiased detail will be the first time.
Most scientists laughed at the co2 theory at that time. The ones you are referring to were actually the fringe element within. Unfortunately, the Jim Hansens of the world caught the ear of the media and enviros. The rest is history.
The James Hansen types are unfortunately the norm now, as the field is based around the belief in global warming. While the field has been extremely politicized, that's in part because the "scientists" allowed it to become political fodder. It's been said that after the fall of the Berlin Wall, displaced communists joined the environmental movement so as to attempt to achieve their political aims through the prism of science rather than belief. I tend to agree with that view.
That's true, but you have to remember that climate science was suddenly flooded with whole cadres of new people following the money. Their only sudden interest in the field was that there was catasrophic global warming, and they had to prove it. Many of the "old guard" suddenly found themselves on the outside looking in. Because your right. Even before the wall actually came down. Guys like Patrick Moore, who left Greenpeace in '86, describe that senario all the time. He saw first hand what is old organization (and movement as a whole) degenerated into after he left it.
