The relative rationality of Malcolm Roberts

Among other interesting results, the recent election gave a Senate seat to One Nation member Malcolm Roberts. Roberts is notable for his expressed belief that global warming is a fraud produced by a global conspiracy of bankers seeking to establish a worldwide government through the United Nations.

Unsurprisingly, Roberts has copped a lot of flak for these statements. But his position seems to me to be more credible than that of the average “sceptic”.

I’ll take, Don Aitkin as an example of the kind of sceptic generally seen as more credible than conspiracy theorists like Roberts. Among other indicators of credibility, Aitkin has an AO, he’s a former Vice-Chancellor, and was Chairman of the Australian Research Grants Committee (predecessor of the Australian Research Council) and a member of the Australian Science and Technology Council. His own academic background was in history and political science. As far as I can tell he has no training or research background in either statistics or natural science of any kind.

Given his background, you’d expect Aitkin to be aware of the years of training required to become an academic expert in any field, and the ease with which amateurs can get things badly wrong. But in his writing on climate change he expresses supreme confidence in his own ability to assess the work of thousands of scientists and pronounce it wanting. As he says

here wasn’t much abstruse science in the global warming issue. A bit of radiative physics, a bit of solar physics, a lot of data of various kinds, large GCMs — global circulation models — and a good deal of extrapolation

All in an afternoon’s work for a retired academic administrator, it seems. No wonder VCs are so highly paid!

Unsurprisingly, we discover that what Aitkin actually disliked was

the message: a set of policies about curbing greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the use of fossil fuels.

.

So, according to Aitkin, the entire discipline of climate science, backed up by every major scientific organization in the world, is engaged in a transparent fraud, has, in the service a political agenda, published false research, easily seen through by a retired political scientist and his circle of emeritus colleagues. They have succeeded in persuading every national government in the world to sign on to agreements based on this fraud misrepresentation of the facts. And to what end? To change the way we generate electricity, or maybe to shift a few research grants from one field to another. The disproportion between effort and goal is akin to using a nuclear-powered piledriver to crack a peanut.

And the same, more or less, is true of most of the relativel respectable “sceptics”. There simply isn’t enough payoff to explain the gigantic effort that’s gone into constructing the global scientific consensus on climate science.

By contrast, once you accept Malcolm Roberts’ premises, the rest makes sense. Suppose there is a gigantic conspiracy to establish a world government. Then suborning a few thousand scientists and dozens of scientific academies, all the weather bureaus in the world and the entire mass media (except for the Murdoch press) would be child’s play. The only question is when the black helicopters will land.

292 thoughts on “The relative rationality of Malcolm Roberts

  1. @Nick
    “That’s not a fact, that’s a claim which you make without evidence.”

    Sorry, Nick. Wrong again. Dr Philip Lloyd, a physicist and climate scientist produced this peer reviewed paper claiming 0.98c nat var per century for the last 80 centuries:

    Abstract:“There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records from several ice cores up to 8000 years before present were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature over a century was 0.98 ± 0.27 oC.
    This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations. “

    If you’ve ever looked at the ice core graphs you would have to be very stubborn not to agree that this is putting it mildly.

  2. spangled drongo,

    I’ve already answered these issues but you keep derping the same stuff. You clearly don’t understand the basics.

    Let me accept your two facts (I can’t be bothered fact checking them) and still demonstrate that they do not lead to your conclusion. You are omitting further facts pertinent to a complete argument.

    Fact 1: Measured global warming since the end of the LIA [~ 200 years ago] – less than 1.0c. or 0.5c per century.

    Fact 2: Average natural climate variability per century for the last 80 centuries – ~ 1.0c.

    Fact 3: Climate forcing can be natural or man made or a combination of both.

    Fact 4: Climate science (repeatable, verifiable and supported by empirical data) as per the IPCC synthesis reports distinguishes man made forcing from natural forcing, estimates both components and also estimates sum or net effects.

    This issue is textually and graphically explained on this page.

    http://priweb.org/globalchange/climatechange/globalwarming/gw_03.html

    Now, I wonder if you can actually answer a counter-argument as opposed to re-wording and repeating ad nauseum the same “invalid-because-logically-incomplete” derp argument? It’s clear you are repeating debating points (not logical arguments) from denialist web sites without knowledge or understanding of even the basic scientific and philosophical contexts.

    Footnote: This is written in the case you are are tempted to complain about modelling. People who complain about climate modelling don’t understand that ALL science after data collection and initial analysis is modelling. Every scientific “law” is a model. Even laws in the hard sciences like physics are models. Scientific models are used to explain and link observed phenomena (usually via causation and sufficient reason as metaphysical principles but also sometimes by invoking mere “brute fact” and probability as fundamental metaphysical principles, in which latter case “explain” and even “causation” are not claimed and “linkage” becomes something more complex and less definite than simple or linear determinism) and of course scientific models are used to make testable predictions.

  3. @Nick
    “That’s not a fact, that’s a claim which you make without evidence.”

    You do of course realise that at the end of the Younger Dryas when the oceans were in the process of rising 120metres that the earth warmed 10c in a few decades:

  4. re #51. Philip Lloyd…a chemical engineer with no climate science work… has made some crude stats passes over a couple of ice cores..then after counselling that one cannot track global climate from a single site, he proceeds to attempt just that from two ice cores.

    Definitely more Roberts than rational.

  5. @Ikonoclast
    I am of the opinion that most serious, credentialed denialists who mount intellectual and scientific arguments, or more precisely pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-scientific arguments, against the AGW thesis, are in fact deliberate and knowing liars.

    I suspect that while they start off this way cognitive dissonance leads some of them over time to actually believe their own arguments. They start of lying to other people and end up lying to themselves as well.

    I doubt that this is true for those being paid to lie since there would not be any cognitive dissonance so someone like Willy Soon is not likely to believe his lies but perhaps someone like Fred Singer would (I don’t think he was paid was he?)

    BTW thanks for the description of the spangled drongo . I had not realized that it was a bird and was assuming it was some kind of weird Australian slang possibly related to dingos.

  6. @Ikonoclast

    Your #52 of 12 Aug

    I am a bit surprised by you here, Ikono, especially after you clearly documented the ‘mimic’ aspect of a speckled drongo (are they as good as lyre birds, I wonder ?)

    Anyway, it is quite clear that speckles is in one of two possible states:

    1. S/he knows nothing about climate and climate science and is absolutely determined to maintain that state.

    2. S/he is having a great little game pretending to know nothing about climate and climate science just to provoke this kind of reaction. A fine example of “mimicking” a denier.

  7. Nice analysis. Naomi Oreskes (and no doubt others) has pointed out that any logical analysis has to end up with either the existence of a conspiracy or that mainstream climate science is on the right track. However, the logical need to invoke a conspiracy doesn’t mean that any particular conspiracy theory is internally consistent. One problem with Mr Roberts analysis is that if there has, for centuries, been a secret world government by bankers, killing US presidents and starting world wars when needed, why does this need to come out into the open? (For those unfamiliar with Mr Roberts’ 1700 page analysis, the “interesting” stuff is in appendix 14. Overall, the document is quite repetitive).

  8. @jrkrideau
    Not sure if Singer was paid for his climate stuff, but he got at least half a million dollars from the tobacco industry. The Oreskes and Conway book “Merchants of Doubt” will have more detail.

  9. @spangled drongo

    “stop insulting people who have a better grip on the real world.”

    The real question is how did you get to have this better grip on the real world. What is it about you that provides you with this better grip and this knowledge of the real world. We all want to know.

    And what is wrong with insults? You are not an 18C tragic?

  10. @Nick
    That’s the way, Nick. Shoot the messenger. So much easier than engaging your brain.

    After looking at all those ice core and paeleo climate graphs for the Holocene, do you really deny that climate nat var has fluctuated far more than is happening currently?

    Scepticism is a vital part of science.

    Belief is for religion.

  11. @Ikonoclast
    But belief in 95% wrong climate models is really scraping the bottom of the barrel:

    Hard science models are often very reliable but it doesn’t follow that soft science models, where scientists can’t even quantify feedbacks [even to the point where they are + or -] are anything other than simply faith-based.

  12. It’s interesting that the conspiracies which climate change denialists never want to talk about are the current and previous real conspiracies already uncovered and verified. These are the conspiracies related to spreading doubt about the dangers of tobacco and spreading doubt about climate science. These conspiracies have been uncovered, verified and documented. The people involved and the money trails have been clearly exposed.

    I continue to ponder what offends and alienates those who become opponents of climate science. The first cause is obvious enough. There are those whose continued wealth and power (or their real or hoped for ascent to it) might be threatened by the changes necessary to prevent or ameliorate climate change. There is however a second group. These are ordinary people who have no hope of real wealth and power and indeed have been getting slowly poorer under neoliberalism. They are ordinary workers and the self-employed, under-employed and unemployed.

    I would hazard a guess that this latter group are already insecure because of downward economic mobility and the attendant incipient realisation that neither the economy nor broad society nor the social elites care for them or their well-being. Following on from this, they are deeply offended and frightened to entertain the further idea that nature or fate or God (depending on how they see matters) could be completely indifferent to them. The idea that nature is not dependably supporting and nurturing is deeply frightening to many people. There seems to be a powerful need to believe that nature (or fate or God) would not, could not, sweep humans aside with complete indifference. Climate change threatens the belief that the world (of nature) essentially exists for humans and for their support.

    It gets back to social security. If society leaves people insecure then they will seek security and solace in irrational beliefs and irrational rejection of those hard truths about mortal existence and complete dependence on nature which clear-eyed, adult, non-infantalised humans need to comprehend. Climate change denialism (about the reality of AGW) is basically an infantile tantrum position adopted by those unfitted to face hard facts. They cover thier eyes and ears and say “Not listening, no listensing!” As I say, it is not entirely the fault of all such people. People left without social supports and denied a sense of security in society are left prey to more atavistic fears.

    The best answer to such problems is more and better education and a more supportive and cooperative society. It’s a long term fix of course. Such measures would take a generation to bear proper fruit.

  13. @spangled drongo

    You don’t really understand how the human brain works do you?

    How does one not engage their brain? Even you with your determined effort to demonstrate how irrational your cognitive efforts, are “engaging” your brain. The question you need to answer that would provide some credibility for your beliefs, whatever they are, is why are you able to see things that other people can’t see?

    You must have a theory or a belief about this?

    Like, “After looking at all those ice core and paeleo climate graphs for the Holocene, do you really deny that climate nat var has fluctuated far more than is happening currently?”

    So what?

  14. @spangled drongo
    In the case of Lloyd’s paper, his ‘message’ is shot down as an inevitable result of ‘engaging the brain’.
    Local variability is a feature of climate, and ice cores at high altitude in the polar extremes show no exception.
    Simply put, Lloyd applies a limited and limiting test using too little data, and any decent conclusions about global variability cannot be drawn from it. But you step in and give it the certainty that only the credulous can supply.
    You are not a sceptic.

  15. @spangled drongo

    In post 52 I challenged you essentially as follows (re-worded for clarity);

    “I wonder if you can actually answer a counter-argument as opposed to re-wording and repeating your original invalid argument. You original argument is invalid because it is logically incomplete. It is logically incomplete because it omits further pertinent facts.”

    You have not yet engaged with the essential elements of my counter argument. These essential elements are points 3 to 5 following a provisional acceptance of your facts one and two without fact checking them. In other words, I have offered a clear refutation of your argument after accepting your claimed facts which are in points 1 & 2 below.

    1: Measured global warming since the end of the LIA [~ 200 years ago] – less than 1.0c. or 0.5c per century.

    2: Average natural climate variability per century for the last 80 centuries – ~ 1.0c.

    3: Climate forcing can be natural or man made or a net combination of both.

    4: Climate science (repeatable, verifiable and supported by the empirical data) as per the IPCC synthesis reports distinguishes man made forcing from contemporaneous natural forcing, estimates both components and also estimates sum or net effects.

    So far it has been revealing that you have been unable or unwilling to engage in ongoing basic logical argument to support your position. Re-wording and repeating your incomplete argument does not advance your case and my logically complete counter argument remains unchallenged.

  16. do you really deny that climate nat var has fluctuated far more than is happening currently?

    So what? I think Ikon has pointed out why this is just silly. Climate scientists have a pretty good grasp on what has cause the variability in the past. They know all about volcanic activity, Milankovitch cycles, solar cycles etc. This guy sums it up nicely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w&feature=youtu.be&t=97

    In fact we can rule out every other scientific theory other than the greenhouse gas theory.
    Now there are other people who say I believe it is something else. Its changes in the earth’s orbit… I wrote a book on the changes in the earth’s orbit. A technical book meant for graduate level study, on the so called Milankovitch Cycles. It doesn’t match those.
    Some people say well there’s something else going on, and I’d say, what’s the prediction you make? Oh I don’t know it’s random.
    Now that’s not what we call a scientific theory. If you say, well it’s something else and I don’t know what it is. My answer is… something else that just happens, by accident, to perfectly match the carbon dioxide increase. Are you serious?

  17. For a professional treatment of the statistics around climate change it’s hard to go past Tamino’s blog. Very clear argumentation, excellent graphs and a low tolerance for time wasters.

  18. Check youtube for;

    Climate Skeptic Richard Muller Admits Global Warming is Real and Humans are the Cause.

    Of course, in fairness to Richard Muller he probably was a skeptic in the true sense of the word rather than denier. He did finally change his mind when new data and/or new analysis of data convinced him and his team. This despite the fact he took funding from the Koch bros.

    Bear in mind even this video is from 2012 when Muller was still playing down the total increase. I wonder what he thinks now in mid-2016? I also don’t buy his claims about “clean fracking” and the benignity of the Koch Bros. Foundation.

    Muller calls science “That small realm of knowledge on which there can be universal agreement”. I tend to agree with that.

  19. @Ian E
    Re Singer and US $$$

    Thanks. I had the vague memory of something from Tobacco but I did not remember that it was so much. My, again vague, memory of Oreskes and Conway suggests that Singer’s climate testimony was pro bono but with that much money from tobacco he could afford it.

    I really need to reread Merchants of Doubt.

  20. After looking at all those ice core and paeleo climate graphs for the Holocene, do you really deny that climate nat var has fluctuated far more than is happening currently?

    See, here’s the thing: if you’re making a long chain of logical deductions and inductive steps, and the end result is an error, then one of the links in the chain must be wrong. But if it’s a long chain, then it’s pretty unlikely that the last link is the one that’s in error: it could be logically sound, but based on faulty premises, or with a misunderstood connection to the subject matter.

    So if you’re in error, then for people to be able to correct your error they need to be able to engage with you at the point your error was actually made. Which is pretty unlikely to be the last link in the chain. Which means that if you want to be able to correct your own errors, if you want people to be able to help you correct your own errors, you need to be able to take a step or two or a dozen back: when people say, “sure, but hang on here, back at [X] you said [Y] but actually…” you need to positively engage with that if you want a hope of improving your correctness.

    [as I’ve said a tedious number of times before: the errors you’re guarding against, the corrections you’re expecting you might get, are unlikely to be the errors you actually make and the corrections you actually get. Trying to fit what a person tells you into one of the things you expect they might tell you is a pretty solid recipe for frustration on your part and theirs.]

  21. You don’t really understand how the human brain works do you?

    As long-term commentators here probably recall, I actually have a theory that predicts this, which — rather elegantly — explains why misogyny is a more frequent problem across cultures than misandry.

  22. JQ runs a service here. It’s where people can maintain anonymity while claiming that they know something that scientists don’t know. When they realise how silly the claims are they’re less likely to make them at dinner parties.

  23. @spangled drongo

    You recite statements X and Y and then ask me how X and Y establish conclusion Z. But it’s not statements X and Y that establish conclusion Z. Conclusion Z is established on a different basis.

  24. @Collin Street

    There is a current Sandpit. I’m interested in your theory.

    David C there are many types of ‘dinner parties’.

    Out here in regional Oz where I live, there are dinner parties at the pub on Friday nights – darts night – and silly claims are a feature of the ‘conversations’, not a bug. Everyone ‘knows’ that there is some sort of conspiracy happening out there. lol These conversations are better than the the fantasies they have about foreigners and the debt though.

  25. I note that Spangled Drongo has ignored the question I posed. Similarly, Don Aitkin doesn’t bother to give any explanation of how thousands of scientists can spend their working lives publishing material that any amateur (like SD or Aitkin) can disprove in the space of a blog post. A

    At least Roberts has an explanation.

  26. It is ironic. But I have never read a climate skeptic’s argument that is not heavily dependent on some unknown (e.g. Factor X , natural variability, a conspiracy theory) to prosecute their case. I’m skeptical.

  27. @Julie Thomas
    “And what is wrong with insults? You are not an 18C tragic?”

    Like others here, Julie, you don’t get that science is about ideas and data, not insulting people.

    Testing to see if this gets through. Looks like sceptics are controlled by you 18c tragics.

    I think Malcolm R is trying to repeal it though.

  28. @John Quiggin
    “I note that Spangled Drongo has ignored the question I posed. Similarly, Don Aitkin doesn’t bother to give any explanation of how thousands of scientists can spend their working lives publishing material that any amateur (like SD or Aitkin) can disprove in the space of a blog post.”

    John, you’ve never heard of Upton Sinclair’s quote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”?

    For example, when we pay marine scientists a fortune to live in paradise to tell us if we have a problem with the GBR, at what stage do you think they are gonna say, “NAHHH! Sack us! Everything’s fine!!

    Or do ya think they are more likely to say, “It’s much worse than we thought. Send more money!!”??

    Nothing to be sceptical about there?

  29. Funnily enough that Upton Sinclair quote was used by Al Gore in his movie. Now who do you think is making more money? The science community or the fossil fuel industry?

    If Muller had found that the climate change science was bunkum, do you think he would be getting grants from the Koch brothers for further research? If scientists really wanted to make money and they can cook the books on their research and be able to get away with it (like the deniers insist that they do) surely they’d be incentivised to work for the fossil fuel industry.

    In any case there are a lot of egos in science. If you can upend the current thinking you’re likely to get a Nobel prize. So what’s the motivation of the fossil fuel industry.

  30. SD, that past natural variations in climate are bigger than what we have caused so far is no cause for comfort. And surely you don’t think it is. Its like there is a drug that is found to have the side effect of making adults lose 50% of their strength, and you arguing that they did just fine as 4 year olds when they were much less strong.

  31. @spangled drongo

    Well done you. You have put me in my place. But, I’m still wondering how you got that awesome ability to understand things that I don’t. I can tell you it’s not IQ. I did a PhD in psych and I know that I’m not too stupid.

    So I’m asking again where did you get this special ability you have to see how reality is working and do tell how can I get some?

    And drongo what does it benefit you to refuse to believe in man made climate change? There must be something in it for you or you would be out making a profit instead of wasting time here. Maybe you get a boost from feeling special and knowing more than the sheeple?

    And here are some more questions that you won’t be able to answer.

    Which “marine scientists” are paid a fortune? Why doesn’t Leak do cartoons about these greedy people?

    I do know there are a great many PhD candidates doing climate science who are living on very little who would be very much admired and able to work anywhere, if they could find some evidence that climate change was a conspiracy or there were flawed studies or anything dodgy.

    I think it is you who does not understand how science works and that aspiring researchers in science can and do look for problems and alternatives to accepted paradigms.

    As David C says by upending the current thinking or comeing up with evidence that it is wrong, a scientist is going to be very successful.

    So you need to come up with a better explanation of why so many scientists don’t see what you see.

  32. @spangled drongo

    Why don’t you look at the salaries on offer? And really, so all these people have no professional integrity? And know here else to go? C’mon you don’t go into marine science for money or because you are a cynic.

  33. spangled drongo :
    @John Quiggin
    “I note that Spangled Drongo has ignored the question I posed. Similarly, Don Aitkin doesn’t bother to give any explanation of how thousands of scientists can spend their working lives publishing material that any amateur (like SD or Aitkin) can disprove in the space of a blog post.”
    John, you’ve never heard of Upton Sinclair’s quote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”?
    For example, when we pay marine scientists a fortune to live in paradise to tell us if we have a problem with the GBR, at what stage do you think they are gonna say, “NAHHH! Sack us! Everything’s fine!!
    Or do ya think they are more likely to say, “It’s much worse than we thought. Send more money!!”??
    Nothing to be sceptical about there?

    There is no good reason for anybody to hire marine scientists to perform the function of reporting that there is a problem with the Great Barrier Reef and, unsurprisingly, nobody has done so.

    Some marine scientists are paid to study the Great Barrier Reef and report what they find, whatever that may happen to be. Their salaries are not contingent on particular predetermined results of their research. If they report that there are problems, it’s because that’s the conclusion that their research has led them to.

    The explanation that the salaries of the marine scientists depend on their reporting that there are problems with the Great Barrier Reef would only make sense if there were paymasters for whom the production of reports of problems with the Great Barrier Reef would be worth paying money for independently of the truth of those reports. But there aren’t, so the explanation fails.

  34. @John Brookes
    John, it’s never a proposition to pay an insurance premium each year that exceeds the value of the house.

    Natural climate variability is always going to happen no matter what we do to prevent it.

    Climate changes. Always has. Always will.

  35. Get rid of the rest. It’s also rubbish. I not only have not said that the CAGW hypothesis is a fraud, but have said that it is not a fraud. It is a hypothesis that has only a little support from observed data, and cannot deal with the objections to it other than by changing the details of the hypothesis.

    Again, you are welcome to tell your supporters why you’re a believer, even better, do it on my website, as I offered before. But you’ll need to go past the approval of earned academies and the fabled 97 per cent of climate scientists.

  36. @John Brookes
    John, SD has asserted that centennial climate variation for the past 80 centuries has been as large as the anthropogenic change.

    This is an unsupportable claim, given that sea level reconstructions, and physical evidence, cannot find anything like the SL variation that would be seen if such global mean temperature variation was present. There are many papers that look at the physical signs of SL variation…none support SD.
    Of course that does not matter, because as per Roberts, science is corrupt…except for those fragments of pseudo-science and deliberately compromised analyses that he promotes. He remains perfectly blind to the consequences of such incoherence.

    In inviting him to discuss ‘past variation was large, so what’, you won’t get any value from him. He will dismiss you, saying you’ve made an ‘admission’ or ‘concession’ that his claim is correct.

  37. Don Aitkin,

    I had a look at your arguments and found myself in the frame of mind one might have if they took a sedative laced with cyanide. I didn’t need to go much past this gem…..

    “Why would anyone go to WUWT, or read anything by Jo Nova? To which the counter is Why would anyone go to SkepticalScience? I’ve said myself that I regard SkepticalScience as mostly worthless and hypocritical, and I’ve explained why. But I have certainly gone there to read their arguments. In fact, if you are going to take part in a debate you have to know what the other side thinks, and why it thinks the way it does. Not to go there, and not to read their stuff, is intellectually empty.”

    …….to appreciate the nature of your science knowledge. Frankly, I think JQ has you nailed down pretty well. I’m imagining yourself, Maurice Newman and Jennifer M having cafe mornings together enthusing over every Australian article while keeping an ear to Andrew Bolt’s morning diatribe. Your admiration for Bob Carter fits so naturally with this image of confused minds.

    I would suggest you amend your Abbott Era End article closing comment to…

    The orthodoxy doesn’t like “nutters”, especially from within science, and is not interested in “futile” debate.

  38. @Don Aitkin

    I have written a large number of essays on ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (AGW) and its later sister ‘climate change’, a term which came into use in about 2004, when dedicated Climate Botherers could see that warming was refusing to rise as it had done…

    Don, do you know what the ‘CC’ in IPCC stands for? Can you tell me when that panel was convened? [Hint: sometime before 2004]….you wonder why you are regarded as an unreliable voice on the topic?
    The rest of your site on CC is shaping up as one long argument from personal incredulity, as far as I have seen.

  39. J-D you speak to plainly. In conservatives minds there is a reason. It’s the lefty-liberal-hippy aversion to commerce. They’re scum don’t you know. They want our taxes to pay for research that will justify the rolling back of industry and put us in a new pre-industrial age.

    Of course the suggestion that scientists are motivated by greed breaks down when you realise that they could be working for the fossil fuel industry for much, much more, and exposing the fraudulent scientists at the same time.

    But the reason why this doesn’t happen is because when people like the Koch brothers hire scientist with some integrity like Muller, they don’t get the results they want. Funny that, money might buy politicians but it doesn’t change reality and science is the study of reality.

  40. Nick, is that really a Don Aitkin quote?? If so it really spells out his total lack of understanding of the subject. Why would anyone work so hard at damaging their reputation with such public declarations?

  41. David C :
    J-D you speak to plainly. In conservatives minds there is a reason. It’s the lefty-liberal-hippy aversion to commerce. They’re scum don’t you know. They want our taxes to pay for research that will justify the rolling back of industry and put us in a new pre-industrial age.
    Of course the suggestion that scientists are motivated by greed breaks down when you realise that they could be working for the fossil fuel industry for much, much more, and exposing the fraudulent scientists at the same time.
    But the reason why this doesn’t happen is because when people like the Koch brothers hire scientist with some integrity like Muller, they don’t get the results they want. Funny that, money might buy politicians but it doesn’t change reality and science is the study of reality.

    Lefty liberal commerce-averse hippie scum aren’t hiring any marine scientists. They don’t have the money.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s