Well it's undeniably true that an overwhelming number of solicitations in the field specifically ask for this particular connection. It's also true more and more in the literature that any paper no matter how loosely connected to climate change seems to feel obligated to talk about it. There are probably many scientists, particularly in the carbon game, that wouldn't be here but for the fact that overall funding in the environmental field is so minuscule (compared to say that apportioned for health or defense) that one needs to pick spots where they can actually work. Like it or not, money leads research, but if environmental scientists were only interested in landing fat grants, they'd be MUCH better off in another field. You'll find more pvc and duct tape in an ecology lab than in a plumbers van, mostly because we can't afford anything else (and hell it works!).
I've also never come across a solicitation that told it's recipients what to find. As long as the methods are sound, scientists are generally free to make their own conclusions. This is one of the areas in which science is fundamentally misunderstood by the public, as the rigorous progression of a novel idea to a paradigm is not something that happens without serious challenges from within the community itself. There isn't a greater community of skeptics on the planet! What's more, skepticism is encouraged within the realm of intelligent debate. There isn't one of us that wouldn't like to conclusively prove that climate change isn't happening, which is why the near consensus on the topic (at least with regards to the overall trend) is so impressive. I'm not aware of many scientists who have somehow enriched themselves in climate change research. To me this makes the money claims levied by the disenfranchised millionaires (billionaires?) in the fossil fuel industry, beyond absurd. What detractors misunderstand is that if someone is getting rich off climate science it sure isn't us. On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: > ECOLOG: > > One of the major propaganda statements of those opposed to climate change > research and actions to reduce atmospheric CO2 is that money is a major > motivation behind what they claim is a fraud. Funding requests are often > cited, and the claim has been made that, for example, "all you have to do to > get your proposal funded is to mention 'climate change,' 'global warming,' > or some similar buzz-phrase." > > To what extent do you think this might be true? > > WT >
