Moreover, as freedomforall pointed out recently, Crichton started writing State of Fear as if global warming was not a hoax and had to completely rewrite it when he discovered the hoax that it was.

Excellent points.

Khalling, I respectfully disagree with the thought this is about regulation. I do not believe an industry has the right to just pollute, or damage or do any harm to the environment just because they exist. They have a responsibility to do whatever it takes to mitigate the results and by-products of whatever it is they do. That is the problem that has been around since the start of the Industrial age. Business wants to do business, and if their business destroys the environment, then too bad. The regulation is only required because they will not do it on their own. If business was ethical, then there would be no need for regulation. I do not want to appear to endorse regulation, I just want the responsibility to be on their shoulders. Just like politicians, business will try to tell you all about how it is either not their problem, not their fault, or why it is their right, to do whatever they do. The result are mountain tops in NY state that have such high mercury content from coal plants in Ohio, that nothing grows, nothing lives there, and nothing will. That is wrong. There are filters that can be installed to remove the mercury, but they are expensive. So they don't, and they buy politicians to make sure they don't. That gives the environmental people ammo to scream and buy their politicians to get more regulation. It is a vicious circle.At least my company (Intel) has figured out that going overboard to meet all regulations, and better, is cheaper than not. In the process they have developed some systems that others use now, and the improvements end up getting offset by income. It can be done, but you have to go beyond the usual mediocre management practices that think cost cutting means laying off all your people but retaining management, which is the norm in about 90% of business today. Of course both sides in the climate thing have bought and sold "their scientists", that's why you can never tell who is lying about it, so people end up ignoring the whole issue.

Indeed! +1

Agreed, my point of truth is that both sides are tossing claims and "science" that is bought, not learned. As others have pointed out, govt science is just as suspect. It is the tainted science that is a problem, when there are those in power who would order us to change our lives based on it.

I appreciate your effort to keep it scientifically honest. I also understand just what you are saying about the funding thing, it is as corrupt a system as any we have, because it is always based on the perception of the approver, the money holders. So, if you have a contrary project, the odds of funding go to 0. So then you go to some rich dude or institute that leans your way, and you are approved (always with strings). A vicious circle that ends with no good data, as it is always skewed to the payer. John Gault was a character, remember, so it was in Ayn Rands story he was able to come up with his motor. But in reality, would he have been able to today, if he had to go get "funding?"