The innovative spark for both of those still came from individuals. What you are doing is mistaking development and engineering for innovation.
"However, you still missed the point, in that you said Eisenhower was wrong, but he was not. If you read carefully, you will see that you agree with him. Eisenhower's point was to warn about unfortunate effects of government money on scientists. He said that the solitary inventor has been overshadowed by task forces with huge budgets, but for them "a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity." Which is why "climate scientists" produce poor results, while individual inventors do produce game-changing ideas."
No, I am NOT missing the point. I disagree with it (and you). Look up "SBIR" and see what it means. Then look up the company "Nanosolar" and read their track record. There is nothing "evil" about government money. Like all money, it is "just money", and can either empower, stultify or corrupt individuals.
"I have a few inventions of my own, but I never received a dime from the government to help me."
I have more than a few, some of them had some government funding, some not. But in all cases, the innovation came before the money.
True.
What you are doing is mistaking development and engineering for innovation.
No I am not. Of course engineering was a huge component, but innovation was also necessary.
There is nothing "evil" about government money.
In the case of IPCC, there is.
Like all money, it is "just money", and can either empower, stultify or corrupt individuals.
I agree that all 3 effects are possible, but I would not go so far as to say that it is "just money," since its political associations make it particularly dangerous. In the case of IPCC, the victim is science itself.
BTW, did you ever meet Gilbert Shelton?