Two important articles

"Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?" Time magazine's recent issue on global warming stated bluntly "The Debate is Over." Hmm... I thought the debate had been over for decades. I guess not. I guess some recent finding finally killed off all dissent from the global warming party line. It's disturbing how analogous this is to the situation ID is facing. jasonng

The intimidation factor was what first struck me when DaveScot presented this Lindzen article on global warming. With a little editing, here are some quotes:

Scientists who dissent ... have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director ... Aksel Winn-Nielsen () was tarred ... Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing () research funding for raising questions. And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted () wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding.

I removed the references to "climate" to emphasize the parallels. Charlie