Paul, If scientists were NOT interested in solutions, we would say the issue needs more study. We would not be saying that global warming is occurring and we need action. The funding is, in fact, shifting to applications. That is as it should be.
Thanks, KLM Decker At 11:09 PM 10/22/2007, Bill Silvert wrote: >Since any serious problem will generate concern and undoubtedly proposals to >deal with it, we should therefore be suspicious -- and if we are of a >sceptical nature, as Paul is, we will infer that serious problems are >fraudulent. Whech makes the world a much better place to live in! > >Bill Silvert > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Paul Cherubini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 2:29 PM >Subject: Re: Heads up: The new Global Warming Denial Front > > > > In other words, scientists are not simply interested in seeing federal > > money spent on direct and immediate solutions to greenhouse gas > > pollution. They are seeking federal funding to study, monitor and > > manage species that might be substantially affected by > > climate change - funding that could create or enhance the > > professional careers of many hundreds, perhaps thousands of them. > > > > So naturally a situation like this raises suspicions. > > > > Paul Cherubini > > El Dorado, Calif.
