Due to the flipping of KTLK and KFAN between 100.3 and 1130 (and my radio preset laziness) I had a chance to catch a bit of Glenn Beck today on my way into work.
The conversation: global warming.
Not being a regular listener, it was tough to follow what appeared to be well-used arguments for why science should be ignored in favor of the work of the coal and oil industry’s own research on the subject of global warming.
But, what really stood out to me was this: Beck made an argument suggesting that we’re living in a world today where the majority of scientists are doing bandwagon science, where they reinforce the consensus because that’s where the grant money is. In a nutshell, if you want to receive government grants for your research, you better plan on supporting global warming with your research.
He then explained that the “scientists” who don’t play that game are the real heros of science today. In fact, he claimed that the typical global warming debunking “researcher” is, in fact, a modern day Copernicus because they speak “truth” to power. Maybe Beck does this every day. It’s the first time I heard it.
That’s quite a twisted piece of logic. But, one thing that is even more twisted about this is the money flow. I haven’t looked into this, but it seems pretty darn safe to assume that the average petroleum or coal industry funded “scientist” is likely bringing home more bacon than average academics.
How much would carbon based industries be willing to pay for research showing that they are not, in fact, harming our planet?
Additionally, why wouldn’t we ALL want those too good to be true global warming “facts” to be true? If we could burn as much coal and gas as we wanted with no side effects (beyond global warming, there are those nagging issues with coal mine disasters, oil spills, exploding gas pipelines, etc), wouldn’t the government support that as well? It’s certainly easier to say yes than no to consumption.
I think I may have been listening too hard. It’s time to update the presets.