What I mean is that you say that the scientist who realize that global warming is a natrual cycle are funded by the big oil companies. The scientist who "believe" global warming is real need to be funded by somone to. or do you forget to mention that they are funded by liberals.
2007-11-26 05:55:38 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Sure that's how the system works. There is a lot of politics in academia and it's usually quite liberal. Most of us know what colledge campuses are like with left wing, anti war, pro environment, pro socialist, pro femonist pro gay rights groups campagning and recruiting (at least that's what the university I went to was like). Researchers just never got out of the system - for whatever reason they chose not to leave and the right wing culture of most corporations probably wouldn't suit them anyway.
We all know how the system works, academia produces left wing skewed research and the oil companies fund research which suits their own agenda. You should look at what people are saying instead of blindly trusting anyone. Just because you agree with someones politics doesn't mean you should take them on faith.
2007-11-26 06:19:48 · answer #1 · answered by Ben O 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sure, but that someone doesn't have to be a for profit organization, whose existence depends on the results. That way lies terrible bias.
Global warming scientists are funded by organizations like the National Science Foundation. NSF has no stake in the outocme of their research.
2007-11-26 16:46:35 · answer #2 · answered by Bob 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There's always going to be a bias in this topic, for both sides of the issue.
Just because funding is done by the NSF doesn't mean there's a lack of bias. The problem with government is that there's competition for the funds. The more of a scream you make, the more you'll get noticed.
For that matter, global warming is marketed heavily by the government despite a "conservative" administration. They're always looking to "educate" somebody.
We might ask our selves if there's a conflict of interest for the government funding of public universities where much of our climate research is done.
2007-11-26 14:16:43 · answer #3 · answered by J.J. 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I've been head hunted several times to cross on over to the other side... more money, more vacation, more travel to spread lies and misinformation.
But I have this weird thing called a conscience, and I loose enough sleep already worrying about other people's lies and the damage done...
This is not a liberal/conservative issue, it is about sustainable life on this planet, or slow painful death...
Unless you've got a ticket to get off this tiny blue ball, you should help those of us that want to make the world a better place to live, not perpetuate the status-quo.
So what's your take?
Who do you work for?
What do you get out of being an obstructionist for positive change?
2007-11-26 14:22:13 · answer #4 · answered by Rainbow Warrior 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the gvmt is censoring reports, they are doing a very poor job of it. Dr. James Hansen was on over 40 different talk shows telling everyone and anyone how the gvmt shut him up.
We mustn't forget that gvmt organizations like NASA are political and not pure science. Remember how they came out with the report that an ozone hole was opening up over Kennybunkport just before the 1992 Presidential elections? They thought they would get more funding with Clinton in office, and they were right.
Imagine working at the GISS and having proof that man isn't responsible for "global warming" and that the hockey stick was flawed. Since your boss is Dr. Hansen, what chance would you have to be promoted? If I worked under Hansen, I know my kids college education is funded by keeping "man made" "global warming" alive and well.
2007-11-26 14:10:46 · answer #5 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
LOL! "they are funded by liberals". That is the most generalized blanket statement based on absolutely no supporting evidence that I've seen in a long time.
Scientists are most often funded by government grants from institutions like the National Science Foundation (NSF). These are by definition apolitical groups which grant funding based on a proposal's scientific merit.
Before anyone claims that the NSF and other government institutions are liberal, you might recall that our current administration is just a tad conservative, and has censored several global warming reports.
When individuals are funded by private institutions like conservative think tanks, then their motivations can come into question. When they're funded by groups like the NSF, this is not an issue.
2007-11-26 14:02:40 · answer #6 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
And that means what exactly? Why does it matter who funds them? I posit that Satan himself could fund climate science research for all it would matter. Results in science simply aren't for sale to the highest bidder.
2007-11-26 16:42:34 · answer #7 · answered by SomeGuy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
See this is why Science is no way of predicting the future. Some say yes this could happen some say no. So basically it's a 50%-50% chance. It's the same with the evolution theory, the thing where the big bang is the reason why we're hear. The only thing that Science is actually helpfull for is technology or new inventions. But other than that it's just a waist of money.
2007-11-26 14:06:19 · answer #8 · answered by Tony RC 2 · 0⤊ 5⤋
Yes, someone has to pay for it.
These days, you won't get any money unless you put "and the impact on global warming" as part of your title.
"Moose Farts and..."
"The yellow tailed rat fink and..."
"My dinner with Andre' and...."
All unfundable studies without the additional title....
2007-11-26 15:29:00 · answer #9 · answered by jbtascam 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The UN funds the loin's share of pro GW research. No agenda there.......
2007-11-26 14:24:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋