True, but we must always beware of big industry co-opting science. It's happened many times- and governments do it too. Particularly when it comes to "natural resources"- where so called science can be corrupted by making assumptions about values.
Hard sciences like physics and chemistry are more immune to such corruption. Social sciences can be corrupted for political reasons and the impossibly difficult subject matter (human behavior). Natural resource "sciences" can be corrupted for $$$$ reasons. Any sciences having to do with climate and the atmosphere are potentially corruptible because they are also almost impossibly complex and for $$$$ reasons. I certainly believe global warming is a real threat- that much is indeed a consensus- but what to do about it is not. Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: Edward Frank To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 12:19 PM Subject: [ENTS] Re: High elevation forest response to climate change and other factors Mike, Steve. The scientific community is extremely competative. Everyone is out to prove everyone else wrong. The idea of a conspiracy among the scientific community is pretty far-feached even for the most avid conspiracy theorist. At this point in time there is an overwhelming concensus, more so on this topic than anything else I can think of, that global warming is taking place and that it is being caused or made worse, to human produced carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels and other activties. It is only the carckpot fringe that doesn't believe it is taking place. If their was legitimate science showing global warming was not taking place, the oil and coal companies would be sending those researchers money so fast they would not know where to stack it. That is not happening because even the big energy producers realize that these doubters of glbal warming are too far out on the lunatic fringe to be given serious consideration. The belief in global warming is far less accepted by the general public, but this isn't really something that can be voted upon. The only materials that can be cited denying global warming were produced by the Bush Energy department, on behalf of the energy industry, and that was because taxpayer money could be used to produce the propoganda rather than their own money. There certainly can be legitimate arguments made about the various legislation, treaties, check-off, and caps that are deisgned to help slow the warming. Can any of these effeorts actually help? Are they really just a redistribution of wealth? Are they just costly fascdes that do nothing. This is a legitimate area for debate. Arguing that global warming is not taking place, or that it is just part of the natural cycle is a dead horse. Ed --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
