If you go to the used car lot, and you see a car you like do you trust the used car salesman, or do you ask a mechanic for his expert advice? Who is more reputable on the car (assuming they aren't connected in some way?).
With the same reasoning, who is more credible? A climate scientist who will get his grants and pubs whether or not climate change is taking place, or a polluter who has vested interests in the results? Its common sense to me. The tobacco companies denied cancer, others denied PCBs, later all kinds of economic catastrophies were portrayed by the industries using CFCs, and now its green house gases. Greed does not care about need. On Fri, October 12, 2007 5:55 pm, DAVID WHITACRE wrote: > Jacqueline, > > Those climate scientists are probably not driving new sports cars, since = > Paul Cherubini has repeatedly explained to this list in the past that = > ecologists (if not climate scientists)--generally described by him as = > "affluent"--generally live in over-sized houses and drive gas-guzzling = > SUV's. I'm sure there are some ecologists who do. Based on that, I = > highly respect everything Paul says. I won't even touch on the DDT = > topic. > > Respectfully where respect is due, > > Dave Whitacre, apparently one of the few ecologists sans SUV and with a = > modestly-sized house > > > > 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.=20 > >> 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?=20 > > Respectfully, > > Jacquelyn Gill > Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
