A former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg has received multiple death threats for questioning the extent to which human activities are driving global warming. ”Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor. “I can tolerate being called a skeptic because all scientists should be skeptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.” Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology […] recently claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”cf. Uncommon Dissent
It's ashame that the science of global warming has basically been thoroughly polluted by socialism. Leftists abusing science is nothing new, even before Malthus Leftists of the totalitarian sort have created various forms of pseudo-science in order to make science into something that it is not. They seek to make it into a totalizing worldview that therefore justifies and supports totalitarian measures without realizing that a totalizing worldview cannot be scientific.
It seems that now that eugenicists/Nazis and Communists have generally been defeated the pattern of changing limited forms of falsifiable science into totalizing and therefore unfalsifiable forms of pseudo-science has found an outlet in "global warming."
Putting the issue of sound/falsifiable science aside, it's interesting how the average American seems to be taken in by simplistic political arguments that appeal to a mixture of their own pride and cynicism. E.g. arguments based on who is funding what in which we are supposed to assume that all research which is funded by an industry with an interest in the results is therefore invalid. People are being led to be cynical about it instead of truly skeptical, otherwise people who make that argument would apply the same reasoning to research funded by the State by noting that the State has vested interests in the results supporting socialism and scientism. (Socialism and scientism because funding will tend to be linked to increasing State power (socialism) and answers of uncertainty or a lack of totalizing knowledge will tend to be minimized, leading to scientism.) It is interesting that people of a populist bent often don't seem to apply the same skeptical reasoning that they apply to Big Business to the State.
No researcher is pure as the driven snow no matter who funds them and all should be questioned. They should all have a better answer than: "Well, a lot of scientists funded by the State agree or somethin' and everyone who disagrees isn't funded by the State. That's what makes what we say objective and we all agree! We ALL agree...and don't you feel as overwhelmed as we do by that?" If that is the type of answer that they give to skeptics then science has little to do with their claims.