> 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.
This hardly constitutes an economic "windfall." These researchers, who are engaging in peer-reviewed science, are hardly driving new sports cars because a couple of institutions have donated money for climate research. The NSF funding rate for many grants has decreased in recent years, due to budget cuts by our current administration. Presumably, if a research project doesn't get funded (and many don't), then the PI picks a different project. Given that it takes a good ten years of education before someone's ready to do independent research, I hardly think today's climate scientists were in the wings a decade or more ago plotting for ways to bring climate change to the forefront so they'd have job security. The in funding was brought about by the science, not the other way around. > 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. I thought that the purpose of applying for federal research dollars was not to use the funds to "promote" a particular agenda, but to test an hypothesis? Respectfully, Jacquelyn Gill
