or that scientists publish wacko theories because it earns them cash?
for one, scientists who speak out against AGW still get grants. in fact, they get paid MORE than scientists who support the AGW theory -- exxon mobile will fund just about any scientist who speaks out against it.
two, if the scientists were simply publishing inflammatory work for cash, doesn't it seem ironic that it's mainly only happening in one field (climatology)? besides, it's not really inflammatory work when just about ALL the other work out there supports the exact same conclusion. if anything, if they were publishing inflammatory material, wouldn't it go AGAINST the consensus, wouldn't it be anti-AGW work???? lastly, scientists only get a ton of cash (in grant money, that is) for wacko theories if they stand and pass peer review. they're not going to get any money for saying some random thing. they have to support their "wacko theory"
2007-11-18 13:59:36 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
doesn't it seem like a lot of people arrived at their conclusion (as far as AGW) without doing any research at all into the matter?
2007-11-18 14:00:09 · update #1
AGW = anthropogenic global warming (i.e. man made global warming)
2007-11-18 14:12:19 · update #2
It's not a lie. Ask the former head of the Netherlands Agency concerned (Royal Academy of Science).
2007-11-18 14:18:57 · answer #1 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Becasue global warming existed following the last ice age, and happened far faster then it is now, and the cavemen didn't drive suv's.
It's just the regular tactic liberals use when they aren't in power to paint conservatives as evil.
When Reagan was president, it was the ozone layer.
When Bush was president, it was the rain forests.
When Clinton was president, NOTHING!!!
Now that GW Bush is president, it's global warming.
If a lib gets elevted, it will be forgotten.
2007-11-18 22:17:31 · answer #2 · answered by twincrier 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i still don't think many people see how a oil company sponsoring any scientist who speaks out against global warming is a conflict of interest. allot of these scientists are the same ones that were working for the tobacco companies in the 90s and denying the link between smoking and lung cancer.
2007-11-18 22:08:00 · answer #3 · answered by Gengi 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
the trash is hitting the fan now. global warming is just another scam for money.
2007-11-18 22:04:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
because of the repub's vendetta against anyone who even mentions "global warming".
2007-11-18 22:10:46 · answer #5 · answered by grumpy 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
All of that and no explanation of what "AGW" is?
2007-11-18 22:09:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋