I have received the comment that follows from a scientist who read Landscapes & Cycles published in the Blog section of Capitalism: The Liberal Revolution.
“I spent many hours listening to tape recordings of lectures by Andrew Galambos. My decision to pursue education and a career in science was the direct consequence of Galambos’ influence. My original formal education was in the design and art fields, so this was a major divergence. Such was the power of his motivation. My specialty was in the field of biomaterials, with 8 patents and a number of papers. I retired from science after my final position which was the 6 years needed to launch a new research institute, from the ground up.
“I salute your effort to provide sanity to the climate change intellectual brainwashing. When I was working in the world of science I was stunned by the lack of receptivity to any questions that might suggest doubt. ‘Are you a skeptic?’ would be a typical reply and end of discussion.
“I understand the basis of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis as CO2 reacts with water to affect pH.
“You can easily do a demonstration in a closed system such as an aquarium. To generalize from that to the oceans of the planet is not rational, in my opinion. The conditions of the ocean have numerous variables.
“Many scientists are environmentalists and easily accede to an anti-industrial position. An enormous amount of public funds is now available for climate change topics. This funding politicizes research and conclusions—and results in requests for more funding. In my opinion, there should be no public funding of science. However, I’m in the minority.
“The funding issues with science are frustrating for scientists. Government agencies are the source of both largesse and endless grant writing stress.
“Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal and other things, and libertarian in his leanings, observed that science is now driven by those ‘who can write the most clever grant applications — which is not the same thing as doing the best science.’
“It becomes a perverse game of persuasion and then spinning of results for the next grant application.”