Evidence, evidence, evidence! However, cannot one set aside the distracting tedium and get down to the question of whether or not academic institutions (not to mention individual researchers) are so grant-driven that education and research has suffered to some extent thereby? If so, to what extent? Significant or insignificant?
I make no judgment on the global warming issue or any other particular issue--that's where one needs the specific evidence. WT There are two kinds of professional; one puts the work first, the other the buck. At 12:37 PM 10/12/2007, 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]
