Full post here. (Our author responds to another piece on global warming/climate change)
“A skeptic withholds judgment until evidence is provided. A denier either refuses to look at the evidence or refuses to change his or her judgment in light of the evidence.”
How do you maintain a reasonable skepticism as regards global-warming when so many people are claiming that the “science is settled,” and then using that conclusion to achieve other political and ideological goals?
You can point out the inevitable corruption that will result from mixing grant money and political interests. You can argue that it may yet be another wave of post-Enlightenment Western Idealism with its own attendant problems:
I will add the following quote by Albert Jay Nock as far as the politicization (which those claiming action are seeking to do):
‘It is a primary instinct of human nature to satisfy one’s needs and desires with the least possible exertion; everyone tends by instinctive preference to use the political means rather than the economic means, if he can do so.
When is it ever settled?
Derek Lowe at In The Pipeline has a good post about politics in the lab. Does it profit at all to mix politics and theory with the sciences?