Wil Burns wrote: > 1. If you want to cash in on climate change, you'd actually > be a skeptic. There's way too many people competing for > university and foundation grants if you support this > "radical" thesis. By contrast, if you want to be a > skeptic, there's an array of corporate-fronted foundations > that will bestow cash on you, so your thesis is internally illogical;
I agree many scientists today - probably thousands - are competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly available climate change grant money. And that's my point - that climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists. Here are just are few of many available examples of the kind of money being allocated: HSBC To Donate $100 Million For Climate Research http://tinyurl.com/37n9kj $9 million to fund climate research http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2005/2/16/9MillionToFundClimateResearch By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of scientists who make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming by more than a few years. But to get back to Maiken Winter's original questions: > How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible > resistance among scientists to get active? I would suggest Maiken take a look at this US Senate Committee Minority page website http://tinyurl.com/36jyvw that provides detailed information on the views of 12 prominent scientists who used to be members of the catastrophic man-made global warming camp and are now skeptics. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
