I am very puzzled by Paul Cherubini's suggestion that increases in climate change research funding has been "a recent a financial [sic] windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists." The term windfall has built-in negative connotations that could potentially be taken to imply that some of us are out there waiting to "exploit" this real-world problem, and thus are indulging in some kind of ecoprostitution. I take very strong issue with such an assertion, if that was the intent. By extension, would it be suggested that Bill and Melinda Gates' new initiative on Grand Challenges in Global Health (http://www.gcgh.org/Projects/) provides a similar kind of windfall for human health researchers, rather than being viewed as creating a much-needed investment in research directed in improving human well-being?
Val Smith Professor University of Kansas At 12:52 PM 10/12/2007, Paul Cherubini wrote: >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. Val H. Smith Professor Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66045 785-864-4565 FAX: 785-864-5321 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
