The argument that scientists push issues like climate change to get money has always struck me as completely absurd. Where are financial interests really aligned? Certainly not on the side arguing against fossil fuel based energy interests.
I wonder who makes more money; Richard Lindzen, with his automotive industry endowed chair, or James Hansen. Given the consulting Lindzen does I've got a guess but oh no, Hansen must be in it for the grants. Ridiculous. There is a lot of money out there for people willing to conduct research, credible or otherwise, disputing the consensus view on climate change. Maybe, instead of scientists pushing fear-mongering agendas to get funding like characters in a Crichton novel, the reality is that human caused climate change is an actual issue. Oh and the ozone layer is still an issue but the actual action on the issue (decrease in CFC use) pushed it from the limelight. Also, for example in regards to acid rain, scrubbers are decreasing sulfur emissions, coal use is going down etc. Same with many of the other issues you mention: action (arguably not enough) has already been taken. This country in particular has yet to take necessary action on the issue of climate change. Ned Dochtermann Quoting Paul Cherubini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Maiken Winter wrote: > > > How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible > > resistance among scientists to get active? > > Because scientists are in business to perform research > and publish or they will perish. In decades past, scientists > who wrote grant proposals that showed how their proposed > research was relevant to the envrionmental crisis fad of the > time (e.g. impact of industrial and agricultural chemical > pollutants on the environment, impact of GMO foods, etc) > were more likely to get funded. > > In recent years, scientists who wrote grant proposals that > showed how their proposed research was relevant to the > current crisis fad (climate change) were more likely > to get funded. > > When the grant getting advantage of linking proposed research > to climate change wears off it, scientists will come up with a > novel new crisis that helps keep the grant money rolling in. > > In 5-10 years the everyday discussions on ECOLOG-L will > likely be about a new "crisis" and climate change will > no longer be a dominant concern anymore just like > concern over ozone holes, acid rain and GMO foods > has faded away. > > Paul Cherubini > El Dorado, Calif. >
