Difference between revisions of "Science and money"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: multi-billion dollar → multibillion-dollar) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
*'... given the momentum that has been building up among so many interest groups to fight "[[global warming]]," it becomes downright embarrassing to support basic [[climate research]]. After all, one would hate to admit that one had mobilized so many resources without the [[basic science]]'s being in place.' [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html] | *'... given the momentum that has been building up among so many interest groups to fight "[[global warming]]," it becomes downright embarrassing to support basic [[climate research]]. After all, one would hate to admit that one had mobilized so many resources without the [[basic science]]'s being in place.' [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html] | ||
| − | * [[Climate research]], once a sleepy academic backwater, is now a | + | * [[Climate research]], once a sleepy academic backwater, is now a multibillion-dollar industry. This boom in spending is because of fears of [[AGW]], and should [[AGW theory]] be discredited, this funding will quickly dry up. So funding for [[Climate science|climate]] researchers exists only as long as climate researchers beat the drum that AGW is a large threat. [http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/chapter-2-is-it.html] |
* Certainly AGW supporters claim that academic researchers are only concerned about the science and are not concerned about the funding incentives. This may be true (though a bit naïve, for anyone who has been in a university environment and sought research funding), but if pro-AGW researchers are not swayed by the funding, then it should be equally true that AGW skeptics are not swayed by much smaller amounts of money flowing to them. Any argument that tries to claim that these situations are somehow different just ends up being circular, i.e. “it’s OK if our guys do it because our guys are right.” [''ibid''] | * Certainly AGW supporters claim that academic researchers are only concerned about the science and are not concerned about the funding incentives. This may be true (though a bit naïve, for anyone who has been in a university environment and sought research funding), but if pro-AGW researchers are not swayed by the funding, then it should be equally true that AGW skeptics are not swayed by much smaller amounts of money flowing to them. Any argument that tries to claim that these situations are somehow different just ends up being circular, i.e. “it’s OK if our guys do it because our guys are right.” [''ibid''] | ||
| − | ==See | + | ==See also== |
*[[scientific research]] | *[[scientific research]] | ||
| − | |||
*[[politicization of science]] | *[[politicization of science]] | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Science]] |
Latest revision as of 18:26, August 18, 2016
- '... given the momentum that has been building up among so many interest groups to fight "global warming," it becomes downright embarrassing to support basic climate research. After all, one would hate to admit that one had mobilized so many resources without the basic science's being in place.' [1]
- Climate research, once a sleepy academic backwater, is now a multibillion-dollar industry. This boom in spending is because of fears of AGW, and should AGW theory be discredited, this funding will quickly dry up. So funding for climate researchers exists only as long as climate researchers beat the drum that AGW is a large threat. [2]
- Certainly AGW supporters claim that academic researchers are only concerned about the science and are not concerned about the funding incentives. This may be true (though a bit naïve, for anyone who has been in a university environment and sought research funding), but if pro-AGW researchers are not swayed by the funding, then it should be equally true that AGW skeptics are not swayed by much smaller amounts of money flowing to them. Any argument that tries to claim that these situations are somehow different just ends up being circular, i.e. “it’s OK if our guys do it because our guys are right.” [ibid]