On 16/05/2013 21:40, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Buchan Meteo wrote:
Steve Jackson scrive:

On May 16, 12:03 pm, Dawlish wrote:
If you look at the size of the consensus which supports the idea that
CO2 is, or is highly likely to be the cause of the current warming.
This consensus is supported by every single National science academy,
every one of 660 scientific institutions and every government that
attended Cancun, Doha and Rio.
Compelling evidence indeed.

However, and I'm not looking for a fight here, but..................

Research papers are written by scientists/academics in receipt of
funding from various awarding bodies around the world, who do seem to
favour research into the causes and negative impacts of climate change,
whilst those who might wish to research positive influences, or be pasrt
of the AGW deniers alliance are refused funding. There are even
anecdotal stoties of academics losing their jobs in universitie for not
toeing the AGW line, and even TV presenters, like David Ballamy, beng
cold shouldered for downplaying the anthropogenic influence on climate
change.

Just a thought, no personal axe to grind:-)

Steve J

It seems popular to think that the scientists whose opinions one
favour are independent right thinking persons funded by philanthropic
benevolence while those on the opposing side are funded by evil
corporate types peddling lies.

Not necessarily corporate types some of the biggest offenders are ultra
far right US "think tanks" that are hidden proxies for big oil and coal.

Of course, none of that is true because scientists do what they are
paid to do, whether that be finding the cure for cancer or making
nicotine in cigarettes more potent. Being a scientist is much like
being a dustman or a brain surgeon. It is paid employment, not some
angelic enterprise.

Not true - at least in academia the object is to discover something that
turns the status quo upside down and requires a major rethink. The best
researchers are always looking to find holes in existing models in
whatever field they are researching.

And even in commercial research most scientists are ethical with a
handful notable exceptions who have sold their souls to for example big
tobacco or illegal drug synthesis. It is no coincidence that ex-tobacco
lobbyists form the backbone of the AGW denial industry.

-------------------------------------
Whilst in essence what you say is true Gianna, it should not be
extrapolated to imply that findings are not genuine. If so it would be
more a human flaw attributable to anyone. As a formerly employed
Scientist and a member of The Royal Society of Chemistry I effectively
took the equivalent of the Hippocratic oath and never allowed my
employer to pressurise me (and they tried) to modify any of the
analytical data I was responsible for managing. My experience was that
the majority of Scientists were of this view.
Dave

You do get exceptions though and most of them are virulent AGW deniers.
The canonical denier for hire was the late Fred Singer who orchestrated
one of the first loads of signatures of ultraright whingers against AGW.

He had previous for helping big tobacco deny that smoking causes cancer
(a claim they can still just about defend on oath with a very cleverly
legally crafted form of words - strictly it doesn't *cause* cancer only
make cancer much more likely in a high proportion of the population)

And here is what his employers thought of him before he got involved in
AGW (with thanks to the US freedom of information act).

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/h...53.to bacco03

The Oregon Petition was almost a decade later.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown