I suggest that (1) money is actually the major motivation behind climate science denial, and (2) the interests behind this kind of denial are adept and shameless at deliberately accusing others of what they themselves do. The truth is that greed, fraud, and shameless lies destroy effective public science (all effective public discussion and decision making, in fact), they do not promote it. And I seem to remember that the tobacco companies actually pioneered many of these fraudulent techniques, yes? Steve Lohse Futures Studies Dept. of Political Science University of Hawaii at Manoa
Good governance is not something that we must institute before we can start living wisely. Good governance IS living wisely. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Raffel, Thomas" <traf...@cas.usf.edu> Date: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 7:43 am Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Of course ecologists try to link their research to climate > change! Everyone wants their research to sound (and > hopefully be) important, and climate change is clearly > important. Just as acid rain is important, and species > extinctions, and the hole in the ozone layer. And yes, > this is partly motivated by a desire for funding, but also by a > desire to continue doing research on important questions. > I see nothing wrong with this. > > Claiming that global warming is a fraud because scientists use > it as a buzz-word to get funding is absurd. Next they'll > say that cancer is a fraud, because molecular biologists and > chemists use it as a buzz-word to help obtain funding. I > wonder if even the tobacco companies ever stooped so low. > > Tom Raffel > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:24 PM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Credibility Research grants etc > > ECOLOG: > > One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to > climate change research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is > that money is a major motivation behind what they claim is a > fraud. Funding requests are often cited, and the claim has been > made that, for example, "all you have to do to get your proposal > funded is to mention 'climate change,' 'global warming,' or some > similar buzz-phrase." > > To what extent do you think this might be true? > > WT >
