4 ms·

If only there was some organization on the other side that could afford that sort of money. They'd easily be able to get scientists to produce the results they

If only there was some organization on the other side that could afford that sort of money. They'd easily be able to get scientists to produce the results they wanted.

dejb 17y ago
Is that sarcasm or what? During the George W Bush's tenure as president, the US government (backed by the massive oil companies) WAS that organisation. Why did they not prevail? Cause the science doesn't work. This is likely to be the very reason why some climate change scientists have such a hard nosed attitude Even if you don't believe that is what happened then you must admit that the existing energy companies have a huge incentive to stop this and easily have the funds to compete with the current spending. Please explain why they haven't managed to do this successfully. The most likely answer is that the science doesn't work and the scientific community has eventually rejected their money. So the energy companies have moved on to funding sceptic groups instead.
Tichy 17y ago
Only like every oil company on earth? You don't seriously believe what you wrote? Not even sure if there are not skeptics on government grants - why shouldn't there be? Do you have any insights into who is researching, and on whose money? However, a honest question: who benefits from belief in global warming, and who benefits from belief in global not-warming? I have a hard time coming up with big industries benefiting from global warming belief, but there might be some?
- phenwoods 17y ago
  Sorry, I was being sarcastic. But it is one thing to suggest that a scientist's work might be influenced by who's financing the work. It's quite another to suggest, as this article did, that scientists would delibratly concoct a hoax just to secure more funding. And if it really were the case that scientists are fabricating scares for a few million pounds, why are thry not also fabricating reasuuring theories to secure funding from those with an interest in maintaining the status quo?
tome 17y ago
I'm pretty sure phenwoods was being sarcastic here, and his comment can be read as saying "Many companies with much lose from CO2 induced AGW being true have plenty of money. If there was a scientific case to be made for it being false they would have been able to fund it."

If only there was some organization on the other side that could afford that sort of money. They'd easily be able to get scientists to produce the results they wanted.

dejb 17y ago

Is that sarcasm or what? During the George W Bush's tenure as president, the US government (backed by the massive oil companies) WAS that organisation. Why did they not prevail? Cause the science doesn't work. This is likely to be the very reason why some climate change scientists have such a hard nosed attitude Even if you don't believe that is what happened then you must admit that the existing energy companies have a huge incentive to stop this and easily have the funds to compete with the current spending. Please explain why they haven't managed to do this successfully. The most likely answer is that the science doesn't work and the scientific community has eventually rejected their money. So the energy companies have moved on to funding sceptic groups instead.

Tichy 17y ago

Only like every oil company on earth? You don't seriously believe what you wrote? Not even sure if there are not skeptics on government grants - why shouldn't there be? Do you have any insights into who is researching, and on whose money? However, a honest question: who benefits from belief in global warming, and who benefits from belief in global not-warming? I have a hard time coming up with big industries benefiting from global warming belief, but there might be some?

phenwoods 17y ago
Sorry, I was being sarcastic. But it is one thing to suggest that a scientist's work might be influenced by who's financing the work. It's quite another to suggest, as this article did, that scientists would delibratly concoct a hoax just to secure more funding. And if it really were the case that scientists are fabricating scares for a few million pounds, why are thry not also fabricating reasuuring theories to secure funding from those with an interest in maintaining the status quo?

tome 17y ago

I'm pretty sure phenwoods was being sarcastic here, and his comment can be read as saying "Many companies with much lose from CO2 induced AGW being true have plenty of money. If there was a scientific case to be made for it being false they would have been able to fund it."