And it’s one thing to defend the scientific rigor of folks on the skeptic side. It’s even braver to take the environmental left on their long-held-but-false belief that the skeptics are a well-funded machine — and is the only thing standing in the way of the public believing climate alarmism, and governments taking action to save the planet.
Well, who is David and who is Goliath here? My first reaction to all this is that those fossil fuel companies and the Koch brothers sure are stingy with all their $$billions in terms of spending it to refute climate change. With only a few scientists or other analysts on staff. Compared to 97% of climate scientists, that must number in the thousands. Compared to $$billions spent by governments on climate research, not to mention $$billions spent by enviro advocacy groups (many of whom have annual budgets exceeding $100M). Is Pat Michaels, Joe Bast, and whoever at GMI, with maybe a measley few $$million per year, really a match for the global climate establishment? Can somebody please explain this to me? Yes, I’ve read all of Joe Romm’s rants on this subject (well, as many as I could stand to read). It just doesn’t add up.
To my thinking, the climate establishment has been seriously misled into thinking that their biggest impediment is the fossil fuel industry and the libertarian think tanks. Bad politics, bad policy, overconfidence in the science and dismissal of skeptical perspectives,climategate, and misreading of economic and technical realities seem to be more likely explanations; its not an issue of the lack of public understanding of the science. In terms of overall effectiveness, I would say the academic skeptics such as Lindzen plus McIntyre and McKitrick have been more effective than the libertarian think tanks in terms of putting forth a skeptical view point. [emphasis added]
Definitely read the whole thing for even more good stuff. Bravo, Dr. Curry.