interest in allowing
mo=
ney to influence their opinons in research. I believe that has been shown
w=
ith the recent exposure of Exxon's interest in climate change research.=20
=20
Mark Winterstein=20
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:06:11 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:=
Re: Climate change
Dave's message reminded me of a comment from a friend that I didn't take
to heart, and didn't apply yet: tell people that you earn nothing by
giving talks on climate change, not for any of your work. Ok, I tell you
know. If anybody wonders, Al Gore's cavalry, how he called us, the
climate project
Sorry, all, I shouldn't write too late or too early in the morning when my
brain isn't quite turned on yet.
All I wanted to say is that the discussion on the ecolog made me realize
that it is important to note upfront who - if anybody - is funding work on
climate change. That might help to reduce
-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Cherubini
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:06 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Climate change funding
Malcolm Mccallum wrote:
if PHDs' activities were
-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Cherubini
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:06 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Climate change funding
Malcolm Mccallum wrote:
if PHDs' activities were
-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David M. Lawrence
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:47 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Climate change funding
Hmmm,
What about the alternative hypothesis, Cherubini
I'm not getting a damn dime of that massive amount of research money you=
claim is skewing scientists' perceptions of problems, but I for the most =
part tend to side with the majority consensus that certain issues, such as=
climate change, habitat loss and degredation, over-exploitation of
@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Climate change funding
Malcolm Mccallum wrote:
if PHDs' activities were primarily profit driven, then they
would be found in corporations paying much better than
the low pay (often less than 45K/yr) found at most
universities upon graduation. Despite
Brautigan
-Original Message-
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Cherubini
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:06 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Climate change funding
Malcolm Mccallum wrote:
if PHDs' activities
in research. I believe that has been shown w=
ith the recent exposure of Exxon's interest in climate change research.=20
=20
Mark Winterstein=20
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:06:11 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:=
Re: Climate change funding To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Malcolm Mccal=
lum wrote
Malcolm Mccallum wrote:
if PHDs' activities were primarily profit driven, then they
would be found in corporations paying much better than
the low pay (often less than 45K/yr) found at most
universities upon graduation. Despite this,
graduates in environmentally relevant fields seek
Hi Kelly,
I don't think the article had an unbiased view on the issue of funding -
to compare funding that people receive from oil and gas companies with
funding that researchers receive after a peer reviewed process of research
proposals is like comparing apples with oranges. Of course many
The problem with these financial arguements is that the basic assumption
that scientists are primarily profit driven is invalid. In fact,
universities found a long time ago that faculty will take a lower paying
post if there is stronger institutional support for research by way of
facilities and
RE: George C. Marshall Institute funding paper
With due respect, I see no problem with a scientist or private citizen
calling for more research, further exploration and a clear, unbiased view of
the facts in a given situation. Kelly, your scoff that the Institute didn't
use any
14 matches
Mail list logo