Re: Global Warming
[ QUOTE ]
It is very much in the personal interest of scientists fighting for scarce grant funding (and grant funding is always scarce, no matter the level) to attempt to maximize the perceived importance and impact of what they are researching. A great way to do this is to make dire predictions.
[/ QUOTE ]
There may be some element of that, but there is also the peer review process and the whole of the sceientific method to put a damper on it. Which is more closely monitored and held accountable -- the work done by scientists through grant funding, published in established, peer reviewed journals, or the work of industry spokespeople?
[ QUOTE ]
What should also not be surprising is that scientists employed by governments produce results to those governments' liking, and what government likes the most is a crisis that allows those in government to justify the extension of their influence, power, and control.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's some logic in that, but in practice a lot of complexities probably add to the mix. The current administration has consistently dismissed human caused climate change.
Edit: I guess the bottom line is that I'm simply suggesting putting significantly more stock in the statements of the scientists legitimately working on the problem than in the statements of those paid by industry to argue against human caused climate change? You can't disagree with that, can you?
|