It's important to always keep a skeptical eye half open, Frank
   M. Carrejo

   A small subset of the larger problem is getting all of the
   attention and we end up with heroes in white hats and villains
   in black hats.

   It's unnecessary for the sciences to be so politicized and the
   politification of the sciences runs the risk of losing full
   objectivity.

   There's no harm in raising questions unless the issues have left
   the realm of science and moved into another arena, which I think
   is his point.   Funding has supported greenhouse gas research
   since at LEAST the early 1990s that I'm aware of. I was there. I
   had scientist friends that complained back on Usenet.

   "Can't get damn funding unless I rewrite my paper to include
   "and how it relates to global warming" even when it doesn't."

   She was studying two types of squirrels in her town. But she did
   it.

   It's unfortunate that "what is important to study" is influenced
   by funding and fads but it is.

   This doesn't take away that climate change is real. But appeals
   to "the way science is done is pure, unlike these rat bastards
   over here" doesn't wash. The practice of science is imperfect
   and there's no harm in calling out on it from time to time.

   Being United with One Wrong Voice is dangerous no matter what
   side-of-the-fence one is on. Better to readjust the results to
   take into account the other gases neglected in current models to
   get a more rounded image of the threat, one that's still real,
   still severe, still a problem, but less dramatized.

   Then again, it doesn't matter at this point. Continuing on the
   present course towards improving CO2 emissions is probably a
   good thing, unless it results in increasing emissions of the
   OTHER greenhouse gases in the process. Then we're just delaying
   the problem, like switching to "clean burning coal" in the early
   80s.

   It DID clean up the new york skyline. As a kid, I went from
   seeing SMOG to actually, one day, seeing the new york skyline
   for the first time, while riding the bus in New Jersey. I'm not
   a denier. I'm also not a scientist. I'm also not a die-hard
   believer. It's pragmatic to move forward in our current
   direction. My belief/skepticism levels don't matter in the
   least. Do they? There's no reason for them to do so, at any
   level of being a scientist. Who would support them? Chances of
   promotion would go to zero. There's no logical reason for a
   scientist to even try.

   Do I think it's a great threat? Yes I do. Do I think something
   needs to be done in a VERY BIG WAY? Yes I do.

   So, for pragmatic reasons, I support the fix global warming
   causes.

   But I'm still disappointed in the politics of the sciences.
   That's all. I'm satisfied with the ambiguity and awkwardness of
   the situation as it stands. I can still support it without being
   fully convinced with the presentation. It's practical. It's the
   nature of the beast, Frank. Publish or Perish. Research
   published within the same environment will always have a slight
   "taint" to it. Doesn't make it invalid. Doesn't make it wrong. I
   accept it with its tea stains on the paperwork and confirmation
   biases when they show up.

   It's still "good enough" science. Global Politics reduced
   scientific objectivity. That doesn't mean invalidated. But it
   reduced it.