
rsm
Well-known member
I'm a bit jaded FWIW. Which do you think would receive more funding today:
research performed by scientists who think global warming is a fact
or
research performed by scientists who think global warming is a hoax, think global cooling is a fact, or that global warming (and man's contribution to it) is at least not a proven fact?
one could also add funding for researchers who think global warming is due to man's activities vs. those who don't or are not convinced
research funding is big business for universities, government agencies, etc. if your job, income, lifestyle (fame and fortune) depended on obtaining and sustaining funding, there may be many scientists who would be willing to "sell" their objectivity for the right price, perhaps?
there is data - and "enriched" data
on both sides of the arguement. No one has shown the "smoking gun" proof one way or the other, AFAIK both global warming and global cooling are theories, no?
show me the money / follow the money. where's it going, who is it coming from; what are the funding sources benefits in providing such funding, i.e., what do they get from it?

research performed by scientists who think global warming is a fact
or
research performed by scientists who think global warming is a hoax, think global cooling is a fact, or that global warming (and man's contribution to it) is at least not a proven fact?
one could also add funding for researchers who think global warming is due to man's activities vs. those who don't or are not convinced
research funding is big business for universities, government agencies, etc. if your job, income, lifestyle (fame and fortune) depended on obtaining and sustaining funding, there may be many scientists who would be willing to "sell" their objectivity for the right price, perhaps?
there is data - and "enriched" data

show me the money / follow the money. where's it going, who is it coming from; what are the funding sources benefits in providing such funding, i.e., what do they get from it?
