- Apr 27, 2010
That's a little better. Posting an article, without providing some sort of context or explanation isn't very conducive to good discussion. It just leaves people scratching their heads in confusion.Not my point as I didn't write the article. Their/his point is that to follow the science without due diligence is not always the best practice in fact finding. Following the money as was done with covid (Fauci claims) showed that it is possible the charts and claims of scientist were politically/financially motivated to obtain grant moneys. US paid billions for Gain of Function research.
So if charts and graphs, are doctored as suggested to reflect governments/political agendas, (articles words) "Shortly after the latest Chicken Little climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded that the sky is falling is that they are paid handsomely to do so." there is reason to believe that following the science blindly would be a fools errand.
That article itself offers little more than supposition, straw men, and red herrings. It's well known that popular topics get more research funding than obscure ones. It doesn't follow that the research is skewed or in any way less valid or accurate. The author is making logical leaps, trying to draw lines between things that aren't there. The only sort of evidence that appears in that article is all against the author, as he clearly demonstrates his bias against both climate change and the political left.