The Need For More Inconvenient Scientists

We definitely need more columns like this one, in today's Boston Globe. Not only does columnist Alex Beam expose the media agenda on Global Warming, he presents us with one of that agenda's targets, meteorologist Richard Lindzen, of MIT. First, the agenda quote:

More curious are our own taboos on the subject of global warming. I sat in a roomful of journalists 10 years ago while Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider lectured us on a big problem in our profession: soliciting opposing points of view. In the debate over climate change, Schneider said, there simply was no legitimate opposing view to the scientific consensus that man - made carbon emissions drive global warming. To suggest or report otherwise, he said, was irresponsible.

Indeed. I attended a week's worth of lectures on global warming at the Chautauqua Institution last month. Al Gore delivered the kickoff lecture, and, 10 years later, he reiterated Schneider's directive. There is no science on the other side, Gore inveighed, more than once. Again, the same message: If you hear tales of doubt, ignore them. They are simply untrue.

To make sure the science on the other side of the man-made carbon driven warming debate is not legitimate, it must be made known that these "scientists" are in the backpockets of the energy industry or their lobbyists, which is the currently the case for Dr. Lindzen, as a named party in a lawsuit in California over vehicle emissions standards. If the "criminilization" of these anthropogenic warming skeptics is to be believed, how about we also get disclosure on who funds the research for the "legitimate" climate scientists? This already occurs for the pharmaceutical industry, why not for the global warming "industry?"

Via Instapundit.