Global warming (the most recent time) started about 11,000-12,000 years ago.
Nothing to do with evolution. Your general antipathy to scientists is still apparent.
ps. I don't do "funding and tenure."
" Global warming (the most recent time) started about 11,000-12,000 years ago.
Nothing to do with evolution."
I thought you were more familiar with analogies. My point is that scientists studying GW have an agenda and that's why it's a political issue as much as a scientific one.
"Your general antipathy to scientists is still apparent."
It's nothing personal. We have just seen the junk that passes for science these days when it is really just political ambition.
" ps. I don't do "funding and tenure."
Really? I just assumed that you were a college professor. Every professor I've ever known (yes, I've known quite a few) "did" funding and tenure.
People who have a vested interest can't be objective. I'm sure you've seen that to be true in other people. And, yes, I agree with you that the Creationists on this thread are not objective, because they have alot at stake. But then, neither are the evolutionists, either.
I wouldn't go so far as to state that scientists in general have an agenda. I respect science and respect most scientists.
However, the minority of scientists who have an agenda do push things to the left. And funding and tenure issues no doubt play a part. That's why Christian objections to science are forcefully slapped down while environmentalist, feminist, or egalitarian objections are met with silence and sometimes capitulation.
A scientist at war with the local NOW chapter might indeed lose funding or tenure. Warring with Christians would produce an opposite result.
Remember Gould & Lewontin's war against Wilson? And the widespread silence in the scientific community over the Harvard president's gender remarks a few months ago? And does anyone seriously believe that homosexuality was reclassed as normal by the APA because of evidence and not ideological pressure?