There is a polemic device often found in thread commentary at blogs such as Jennifer Marohasy and elsewhere which claims that environmental ‘alarmists’ are motivated by funding and furthering of academic careers. I guess the logic from a denialist perspective is that as there is no proof of anthrogenic global warming, for example, then anyone working from the point that AGW is a serious concern, must only be motivated by furthering their own careers, whereas denialists are the only ones doing objective, unbiased, serious science, free from any motive but determining evidence-based truth.
Given reports of corporate funding for environmental denialism, I’d like to see evidence-based comparative data about the funding sources, funding levels, and career path opportunities for people working in the denialist and alarmist lobbies. Given that most governments are not that interested in environmental issues such as climate change, where does this funding come from to further the careers of all the alarmists?
Does anyone have any comparative evidence-based data comparing denialism vs alarmism?
Filed under: Economics, Environment, Politics, Science
The Dog's Bollocks 
Tim Lambert at Deltoid on Stephen Milloy, nominated by The Beast as one of the 50 most loathsome people in America.