There's more accountability in government
than in the private sector. For starters, the fact that you can find out the salary and other info of senior people in the public sector, the fact that they must respond to FOIA. Try finding out all the funding
behind Heartland or similar 'institutes'. Try getting their emails and files.
Also, let's analyze a bit: if the financials around Shukli are proven, you have a guy who's enriched himself and his family
to the tune of a few millions, over several years. ($750k/yr - that's just a bit above median salary on Wall St, isn't it?). With no proof yet that he's fudged any of the science, or how bending scientific results enabled any of the double-dipping. Now take a fossil-fuel company, and if they can block action on AGW, they've protected BILLIONS in profit. Tell me again who's more motivated to twist the truth.
Respectfully, if you find yourself hating your government
, elect a different one. Change it.
Originally Posted by Exile
ExxonMobil could be sued if there was evidence that they had proof that MMGW exists, further proof that it would cause the type of catastrophic damage to the human race
that you & others so fear, and
that they deliberately withheld or manipulated this proof to deceive the govt. & the public. Oh, and you'd also have to prove that their deception caused somebody some harm.
Yes. That's the idea. But really, I don't think that either of us actually expect that the government would go along with the suit idea, or bother to sue Exxon and friends, unless there was a small stack of smoking guns
. Looking out for one's own interests is not necessarily wrong or illegal.
Leaving the safe haven of partisanship for just a moment... if I was a climate change skeptic, I too would be troubled by the discovery of possible misbehaviour on the level of Shukli or Alonghi. And I might be put off by the zeal and/or hype coming from Gore, Hansen, and various and sundry advocates. BUT, looking past that... if there was
indeed a serious problem with the science... wouldn't you expect a big groundswell
of climate scientists coming out to confirm this? Especially when there is significant public sentiment that is skeptical or anti-AGW, providing a fairly safe environment
to come out into?
Instead of such revelations, there's only this cottage industry of anti-AGW mythmaking, focussing on a small handful of individuals who have been elevated to Roman gods of evil, whose misdeeds, real or unproven, are obsessed over. And authors, websites and media outlets have all been classified as anti- or pro-, so it's easier to dismiss anything they say or do, (Stu: As soon as I saw "argues Stephan Lewandowsky ", I knew what was coming.
) with no examination of the info.
So... yes, finding some bad apples - troubling. But it's going on...10? years for the "hockey stick", and none of the accusations have stuck to Mann? No serious error proven, and the science is moving forward anyway. Some things (Mann, 'Climategate') ... you just need to move on.
There are a few prominent and honourable scientists, in and outside of the climate field, who are skeptics. I see this. If their positions were scientifically valid, and not just opinions, where's the masses of free-thinking climate scientists rallying round their flag, glad to be free of the yoke of conformity and "consensus"? Why has no ambitious CC skeptic scientist led a significant numbers of fellow scientists to challenge the consensus, if it's actually wrong?