Is Climate "Science" Being Corrupted? Only the "Pro" Side Gets Publicized, Funded, & Peer-Reviewed

Self-abnegations, mea culpas - so guilty are we ofsupported by the entire civilized and political world) -
destroying our planet (collectively, of course - not thewhile the other side offers only negatives, no funded
proclaimer personally) - that we must all save theresearch programs, and black-ballings from peer-revue
environment, the forests, the rivers, all endangeredjournals?
species. How wonderful it feels to make suchWith the above unbalanced situation so clearly
admissions: Obama's speech at Copenhagen; heavyobvious, how can the public trust the conventional
reparations promised to 3rd world countries forconclusion of man-caused climate change? Raising the
despoiling our common planet; his Cap-and-Trade bill;issue of "corrupted" science through one-sided
his EPA restrictions and penalties (someone elseassessment and publication, there have been some
paying the penalties of course - the "wealthy,dissident voices raised, trying to make themselves
primarily U.S. citizens). Never in the history ofheard over the roar of the multitude (people and
civilization has there been such an (almost)governments). These are calm, quiet voices,
unanimous, universal, single-minded belief - by all theexplaining that climate-change is not the irrefutable
most literate, educated and leaders of human-kind:(solidly provable) "science" of Sir Isaac Newton's
Global Warming, Climate Change, man-made pollution,Laws of Motion - climatology factors are very
carbon dioxide emissions - completely believed by thecomplex, and "science" is not "true" if the "pro" view
United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel for Climategets broad funding and publishing support - and
Change, by the Nobel Prize Committee Awards Panel,focuses only those items which support its theory
and by the editors and followers of all main-streamwhile omitting those that do not; while the "anti" view
media and scientific journals!gets neither funding nor publishing availability. These
Swept under the rug and forgotten - completely -calm voices do not proclaim for an opposing
are the scientific scandals of yesteryear: theviewpoint (that mankind does "not" pollute) - only
admissions of "cooked" temperature and climatethat the data and evidence are insufficient for the
data; of the faked famous "hockey stick" chart withpolitical conclusion that has been made.
its global warming upslope; the firings and resignationsThus, 31,072 Americans with academic degrees in
(in disgrace) of UN "scientist" leaders of the UN'sscience, a few years ago signed a petition which
climate-change programs. During fall and winter 2009,flatly denied the proclaimed wisdom that
when the frigid weather made a mockery of "globalhumanity-caused-global-warming was settled scientific
warming"; when the eruption of an Iceland volcanofact. Sponsored by eminent scientists, such as Dr.
with it's prolonged spewing of ash into theArthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science
atmosphere and over Europe cancelled out aand Medicine, the petition called upon the US to
continent's commercial flights for weeks - but alsoreject such a position. This was at the same time
cancelled out a decade of mankind'sthat Al Gore (and the UN's IPCC) was receiving a
conscience-stricken efforts to "green" the planet -Nobel Prize for his film on Global Warming - and
none-to-few were any news media comments ondemeaning his critics as "a tiny, tiny minority - like
climate. However, with April 2010 having warmthose who believe the moon landing was staged in a
temperatures (somewhere on the planet), quicklymovie lot, and that the world is flat". Other
were found stories about how Al Gore's belief inoutspoken scientist-challengers to the conventional
global warming was being proven.wisdom are: Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., Professor of
The question about man-made climate change isAtmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute
legitimate and worth-while, however, the moreof Technology; Dr. B. Lomborg, Director of the
meaningful question is whether the assessment byCopenhagen Consensus Center; Dr. Parrick Michaels,
the scientific community is fair, honest, "scientific" andat the Cato Institute; Dr. Philip Lloyd, Honorary
trust-worthy? Is humankind, with its unquenchableResearch Fellow at the Energy Research Center at
appetite for fossil-fuel energy (for homes, industrythe University of Cape Town in South Africa.
and travel) truly damaging the environment of planetThe issue here is not just academic and scientific
Earth? On the one hand, it is a feasible concern -honesty - the financial well-being of the United States
civilization, with huge amounts of fossil-fuel emissions,and the world is at stake. The restrictions,
does cause obvious pollutants; on the other hand, ourconstrictions and monetary penalties of the
planet is huge, nature is both complex and dominant,contemplated Cap-and-Trade bill (already passed in
and the power of the sun is undeniable - plus, not tothe Democratically-controlled House of
be overlooked, are also earthquakes and volcanicRepresentatives) and Obama's EPA (Environmental
eruptions. The bottom line is: can one trust theProtection Agency), and the reparations promised by
climate scientists when the flow of research grants,President Obama at Copenhagen (to 3rd world
monetary awards, financial well-being, professionalcountries) by the U.S. and other 1st world countries
career enhancement and approbation is so readilycan raise havoc upon the financial well-being of the
available from only the one side of the issue (andUnited States as well as the entire civilized world.