Wil Burns wrote:
1. If you want to cash in on climate change, you'd actually
be a skeptic. There's way too many people competing for
university and foundation grants if you support this
radical thesis. By contrast, if you want to be a
skeptic, there's an array of corporate-fronted
I am very puzzled by Paul Cherubini's suggestion that increases in
climate change research funding has been a recent a financial [sic]
windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of
scientists. The term windfall has built-in negative connotations
that could potentially be taken
Actually, most of the $100 million of the HSBC climate change money
is for long-term conservation projects, not research per se. HSBC is
not setting itself up along the lines of the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation or the NSF but filling in a genuine gap for work on
restoration,
Val Smith wrote:
The term windfall has built-in negative connotations
that could potentially be taken to imply that some of us are out
there waiting to exploit this real-world problem, and thus are
indulging in some kind of ecoprostitution. I take very strong issue
with such an assertion,
competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly
available climate change grant money. And that's my point - that
climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for
the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists.
This hardly constitutes an economic
Val and Wil,
Lets be open minded, I think Paul may have a point here; I myself
spent 7 years in graduate school studying effects of acid rain on
forest and tundra nutrient cycles receiving $11K - $18K annually of
NSF funded taxpayer dollars. As a Post-Doc the windfall was more
than
: [ECOLOG-L] Scientists versus activists
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Hi Paul and all. These are an odd set of statements from two tenured
and well-funded
skeptics of human-induced global warming.
Jeff
Val Smith wrote:
The term windfall has built-in negative connotations
, Jeff
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:51 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Scientists versus activists
Hi Paul and all. These are an odd set of statements from two tenured and
well-funded
skeptics of human-induced global warming.
Jeff
Val Smith wrote:
The term windfall has built
Jacqueline,
Those climate scientists are probably not driving new sports cars, since =
Paul Cherubini has repeatedly explained to this list in the past that =
ecologists (if not climate scientists)--generally described by him as =
affluent--generally live in over-sized houses and drive
Evidence, evidence, evidence!
However, cannot one set aside the distracting tedium and get down to
the question of whether or not academic institutions (not to mention
individual researchers) are so grant-driven that education and
research has suffered to some extent thereby? If so, to what
If you go to the used car lot, and you see a car you like do you trust the
used car salesman, or do you ask a mechanic for his expert advice? Who is
more reputable on the car (assuming they aren't connected in some way?).
With the same reasoning, who is more credible? A climate scientist who
Cherubini
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:43 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Scientists versus activists
Maiken Winter wrote:
How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible
resistance among scientists to get active?
Because scientists are in business
Dear all,
One issue in the states which I don't understand is, why the other side
is mostly a lot more outspoken, and has a lot more aggressive strategies
to get their point across. The urgency of combating climate change is
huge, we are risking not just our children's future, but our own.
But I
Maiken Winter wrote:
How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible
resistance among scientists to get active?
Because scientists are in business to perform research
and publish or they will perish. In decades past, scientists
who wrote grant proposals that showed how
] On Behalf Of Paul Cherubini
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:43 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: Scientists versus activists
Maiken Winter wrote:
How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible
resistance among scientists to get active?
Because scientists
The argument that scientists push issues like climate change to get money has
always struck me as completely absurd. Where are financial interests really
aligned? Certainly not on the side arguing against fossil fuel based energy
interests.
I wonder who makes more money; Richard Lindzen, with his
16 matches
Mail list logo
