Val and Wil, Lets be open minded, I think Paul may have a point here; I myself spent 7 years in graduate school studying effects of acid rain on forest and tundra nutrient cycles receiving $11K - $18K annually of NSF funded taxpayer dollars. As a Post-Doc the windfall was more than doubled and that doesn't include the transportation to and from Antarctica not to mention the weekly phone calls to my wife for 6 months. So all told I have gleaned nearly $300,000 over 12 years to study global change, and only had to pay for cross country relocation 3 times!. The money devoted to the topic has grown so large that literally hundreds of newly minted PhDs compete vigorously for the dozens of faculty positions through which future funding will be provided. In fact I have grown so affluent from scientific funding that I am able to "retire" early and pursue a career as an adjunct professor at a local community college.
Why do you think the 3000 plus IPCC scientists devoted their free time over the last 28 years? Obviously, so they could divide up the millions in Noble Prize money. I pity those poor dozen skeptics who now have only Western Fuels and King Coal to look to for research funds. David Bryant On Oct 12, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Val Smith wrote: > 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]
