Global Warming

[Stanley A. Gorodenski]

Paul Cherubini wrote:

> University scientists, environmental interests and regulatory agencies
> stand to acquire alot of career enhancing money from industry and
> agriculture if they can demonstrate the alledged human contribution
> to global warming is very substantial and seriously threatening.

Patrick Foley essentially answered this already, but I would like to add
to it.

I do not think your statement holds much water, at least with respect to
university scientists. The small pot of money scientists use for research
is allocated by Congress and the executive branch, and the purpose to
which this money is to be used normally has strict guidelines. There is
generally no great monetary incentive for university scientists to lie
because of the small amount of money involved, and if they do lie (i.e.,
falsify results) it could negatively impact on their ability to get future
grants. This is in sharp contrast to executives in private industry.
Executives can realize a great profit (millions, maybe even billions, of
dollars in their bank accounts) by narrow mindedly opposing the research
results of scientists that humans are the cause of global warming. Who has
the greater incentive to lie with respect to global warming? It is obvious
executives in private industry do.
Stan



 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl